logotipo

February 1, 2007
Child abuse is a hot topic and a scary one. Parents have been terrorized by news stories of repeat offenders turned loose time and again to prey on youngsters. As a preventive measure, anxious parents closely supervise children far later into their adolescence than was true in my day. This is the hype that LL uses and ironically LL is a child abuser. To coach children is abuse.
I am concerned and want child abuse to be stopped (Including in my own family in which LL and Nancy abuse my children). Understandable, right, but what I have learned is that any parent is targeted as the major source of child abuse by a relatively new federally funded bureaucracy known as Child Protective Services.
The pedophile who catches someone else's children and abuses them is not the focus of Child Protective Services. CPS is there to save the child from its own parents.
The explosion of false allegations is partly a result of the hysteria generated by child advocates and partly a result of the fact that federal law grants immunity to those who make false allegations of child abuse. Today false allegations are widely used to obtain sole custody in divorces, as a means for the childless to grab other people's children, and as avenues for ambitious prosecutors to create political careers.
And the crazy thing is that, even realizing that the allegations in my case are absolutely false, my children have not even made a sex abuse allegation and yet that is where the KGB is taking things. They are nuts.
Now, one of my children, Hannah, is adopted. So far she has had email contact with both of her biological parents and she has seen pictures that they have sent and she has spoken on the telephone with one of them. All this has happened slowly andnaturally and it has been driven by Hannah and her emotions have been good about it all and I have been in close collaboration with Sarah and Scottie about what they say to her. With Scottie it is somehow easier. He asked me to tell him what I wanted him to say.....He is totally cool with me just telling him what he can say and I tell him to say anything good about Hannah, that he is proud of her, that he thinks she is a great girl, that he is in Iraq and he can not see her...... Sarah is very emotional but also very understanding of the situation.

February 2, 2007
I called at 7PM. LL picked up the phone. She sounds cordial enough. It has taken her three years to be this cordial. “How are you Rena?” “Oh, fine,” she says. Then I ask her about Sofia and Hannah’s day. She tells me that they had made tie dye shirts in their after school time. Then she says “here is Hannah.”
I start out by speaking with Hannah about the cold and the snow. She confirms that she had gone to school a couple of hours later yesterday but that today she had gone at the same time as usual. Then I ask her if she knew that there had been a tornado in Florida (it’s big on the news today and Florida is one of her favorite states,) and she says that she had not but is very excited to hear this. She has been through tornado watches in Louisville and understands this concept as well. “I know how it makes a tornado!” she exclaims and then she describes how the clouds swirl around and around. I ask her if she has seen tornados in the sink or in the tub and she tells me that she has. Then I ask her if she has a book she can read to me. She does and finds a book that has three stories, only she reads them to me in a rather convoluted fashion which I will now mimic in this write up, so get ready for some mind boggling work!
The first story is about a Polar Bear and a Hare. “Do you know what a hare is, Daddy?” she asks me and I respond “yes, I do, it’s a bunny rabbit.” “Yes!” she says and then she continues to read out the story: The Polar Bear lives on a hill on the north pole and life is pretty quiet until it hears a loud cry from a Hare in a hole (or something like that.) Then Hannah explains “Ok, Daddy, I am going to read you half from each story.” I guess she has become tired of this story and goes on to the next story which is called “Bounce, Tigger, Bounce!” In this story Tigger is bouncing along and causes snow to fall on Roo’s head. “Hi, little buddy!” says Tigger and then the two of them bounce in big and tiny bounces “deep into the woods.” And then the third story is called “Muddy Soup.” It is about a girl who is drinking soup out of her thermos flask in the presence of a boy called Josh. The soup is thick and dark in color and it has beans that look like wiggly worms or pebbles… “Mummm, Mud soup is delicious!” says Rosa. Josh, who is eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, is disgusted. “Did you like that Daddy?” “Yes, Hannah I love it when you read to me on the telephone.”
“Ok, then let me read to you the other story parts too!” and she continues to read that the Hare was scared by some snow but the bear told her that “everything is alright,” and then they played tag. The Hare is too fast for the bear but then the Hare is tired and falls asleep but the brave Polar Bear stays awake to protect the Hare. And then the other story has Tigger and Roo deciding to bounce up into a tree. “Can Tiggers climb trees? No, but they can bounce in them! You see, their tails get in the way when they bounce in them.” And then these two creatures are stuck in the tree and along come Kanga and Christopher Robin (and probably also Pooh) and Christopher Robin extends his coat so that Roo can jump down but Tigger has to bounce down. And then the third story continues with Rosa meeting Josh at the Park slide and going to Rosa’s house and there in the kitchen is a hot pot of wonderful soup. Rosa calls it “Mud soup,” but it sure smells good. And in the end Josh tastes it and asks why it is called mud soup? Because it looks like Mud! “Thick and dark,” says Rosa. “Mummm, Yummy!” says Josh.
Then Hannah and I speak about the tie dye shirts they had made earlier. She describes bunching up the cloth and putting rubber bands on them and then spraying them with tye dye paint. Sofia is angry about something in the background. It seems like she has a wound or a sore or something. I ask Hannah and she tells me that she has a rash on her arm. She then tells me that LL is putting Chap Stick on the rash. I tell her that this is good and “You can put chap stick on your skin but not on your eye balls.” Suddenly Hannah says “I have the most important question to ask you.”
“Yes, Hannah.”
“Did you do peepee?”
“No, Hannah.”
Hannah repeats this again saying:
“I have the most important question to ask you.”
“Yes Hannah” I repeat.
“So you did not do Peepee?”
And then Hannah says “Yes, I know.” And the next thing I know we are talking about meeting tomorrow. She wants to know where we will meet. I told her that it was going to be a cold day and that we would probably spend most of the time inside, but just in case, she should bring a jacket so that we can go outside too. Then I can hear LL making directions to both children in the background and Hannah tells me that “I think it’s Sofia’s time.”
“I love you very much,” I say “I love you too Daddy,” she says but then she tells me that Sofia is being “naughty” and it is unlikely that Sofia will speak with me. I hear Sofia say “Daddy…” and I respond “Hey? Is that my Sofia?” and she does not respond. The next thing that I know happens is that Sofia is screaming and LL comes on the phone and tells me that she “has no idea what happened.” I described to her what had happened form my end and she tells me that Sofia will call in a little while.
At 8:00 still the phone had not rung so I called. Hannah picked up the phone. I said to Hannah “Hello Hannah, this is Daddy and I was calling back to see if I could speak with Sofia because I spoke for a long time with you but I did not speak with Sofia.” Hannah then told me that she “could not go to Sofia because she was stuck in the high chair” and that “Sofia was in time out up stairs.” I inquire why Sofia is in time out and Hannah says that “it’s because she was hitting me.” “Oh?” I say “well, do you think that if I ask Mommy first if Sofia can speak with me and Mommy says yes, that you would agree to let me speak with Sofia?” “Yes,” said Hannah. But Hannah is stuck in the high chair so I ask her some questions about the stories she had read to me. “Did the bear live on the North or the South Pole? Why was the Hare scared?” Hannah answers the first few questions and then she is quiet. I say “Hannah?” three times and then she says “I was looking at Momma.” I can hear LL approaching (I hear her steps.) Hannah says to LL “sorry.” Then LL gets on the phone and says “Sofia is not talking to anyone right now because she doesn’t want to.” Hannah is obviously right in front of her and Hannah must have been cringing. I ask LL “Does that mean that I will not be able to speak with Sofia tonight?” and she says “She is in time out. And when she is ready to talk with you then she will.” I can hear a great deal of stress in LL’s voice. She explains that she has a lot of things to do and that she “can not talk with me at that point.” I have already accrued a huge understanding from Hannah and so I have gotten all that I can gallantly get from this telephone interaction and so I say “Ok, Rena, bye-bye.” She hangs up. I imagine the thoughts running through Hannah’s head as she sits in the high chair – I think she is under strict Lasky orders to sit in the high chair while Sofia is in time out, locked “upstairs.” The reason for all this hell is that LL has been trying to coach the children again to make statements to the effect that I abused them. This is why Hannah asked me about the allegations and probably why Sofia behaved as she did, knowing that LL would be pleased, that she would gain points with LL, if she refused to speak with me – apparently it is that being in Time out is better because then she is excused by all parties. What do you want to bet that tomorrow she will apologize for not being able to speak with me and tell me that she is in time out?” (That would be the third time it happens the last time was in December or November of last year.)

February 2, 2007
Dear Lorena,
What is going on with your attempts to make an appointment with LeeAnn. Please remember that I sent you an email to make an appointment without worrying about me because I will make it.
Thank you,
Allan

February 2, 2007
Dear John,
I have sad news about my job in Memphis: The school did not open. On Monday we were told to go home. The school will open, they say, in several months and we are laid off until then. The school does not have enough money to open right now and the fire marshal did not OK the buildings....
I got paid for the time I worked and I paid $550 child support and now I am now heading back to Louisville. I have not told my X.
Allan


February 2, 2007: For the second time, I send Richard a simple question. It is not surprising that Richard never responded to the email the first time – he doesn’t care. He is such a looser (professionally) that the only reason I am sending him this is so that he may experience his self.
Dear Richard,
Tomorrow you will not be present with Sofia and Hannah. Would it be possible for me to speak to Alicia, the person who is replacing you?
Allan

February 3, 2007
Today I am scheduled to spend time with my children. I am not sure that they knew this yesterday when I spoke with them. They would have brought it up? So there are two interesting aspects to our time together tomorrow. The first is that the children have been recently coached and the second is that there is going to be a completely new person – a person who is entirely ignorant of this case -- present. This new person, Alicia, will need a great deal of help if shit flies, if either Sofia or Hannah say things that are a reaction to being coached or consequent to coaching. Of course, from the solid perspective of a social scientist, I can not provide that. I can only be myself and see how the universe unfolds: Hope that Alicia calls CPS to make a complaint against LL (something plastic Richard never did although he had plenty of reasons.) Then again, maybe nothing will happen?


February 3, 2007

I arrived early at Day’s café. I called Richard to remind him that it would be nice if the person who is replacing him today and I could meet before Hannah and Sofia arrive – but I had to leave a message on his answering machine since he never picks up his phone. In fact, I believe he has picked up the phone only two times for me in the years he has been involved in the case. I am polite to Richard but it must be said that if he and I were in reversed roles and I treated him like he treats me that he would be very angry and rightly so. For example, it is a terrible fact that Richard is a liar. The numerous times that he has said that he would do something and hasn’t is fantastic. For example, he promised that he would bring copies of the reports to the zoo and didn’t. When I asked him, he shrugged his shoulders and with a smug expression on his face said “I forgot.” I am still in the blue about whether he has provided Helmers with the reports that he promised to send to Helmers weeks ago. He told me on many occasions that he supports unsupervised visits but then he told Craig Hansen that “he sees no reason for either supervised or unsupervised and so can not make a recommendation either way,” and in effect what he has tried to do is pander to all parties and has been a terrible impediment to progress. But, the list of promises he has made to me is endless and many very poignant lies.

At 2:00PM I heard my daughters! I was just then writing LL an email. LL came with them. But where was Alicia? Alicia arrived 20 minutes late! It was an opportunity for LL and I to manifest decent behavior to one another. LL could not contain herself! She bossed me around, pretending to need to protect the children and all that crap. I obliged in an Allan way, went outside looking for Alicia and then came back. I showed Hannah and Sofia how to use the computer to watch videos of themselves and then of ‘Stripes’, which kept them nicely entertained until LL spotted Alicia. I went to get her. Alicia did not care about anything: She excused herself at a distant table and pulled out her laptop and checked her email while Hannah, Sofia and I watched videos and made paper airplanes. At one point Sofia and I went outside and Alicia did not care to follow us. We stayed outside for five minutes and then returned to join Hannah who was happy watching stripes. Her favorite part was when the goose took the motorcycle to pieces.
As we walked then to a convenience store we talked about the temperature and noted that in the shade the ice had not melted but in the sun it had turned to water. Each child selected one item to buy and then I gave them the money so that they could purchase the items on their own. We made a funny video outside and then returned to the car (but we left my coffee cup on the other side of the street and picked it up on our way on.) We picked up the laptop and went to Heinebrothers café to watch the video we had just made. Hannah then become most intrigued to watch the video ‘Stripes,” and indeed she carried the laptop back to Days Coffee shop with ‘Stripes’ running. Lorena arrived fifteen minutes late and I recorded her picking up the children on video. I remember at quarter past the hour, detecting that Alicia was talking with LL on the phone but otherwise she gave no indication of care. Sofia and Hannah had already expressed many times that they did not want our time together to end and were not happy that Mommy was going to pick them up so soon… and yes, I think LL was a stressed basket case. Alicia didn’t appear to be paying attention to anything. She left even before LL and the children had gone. There is a remote possibility that she was sneakily observing us but I doubt it. I think she is a nincompoop of incredible high order. I don’t care for me but for other ‘supervisory’ roles she must suck. In a way, it is sad that she was there and did not pay attention. She would have made a good witness.
“Why are you so harsh on people?” Dawn-Michelle asked me later. “Harsh? What? after they have done to my children I am gentle.”

At 7:00PM and at 8:00PM I tried to call my children and no one answered the phone. I called Nancy’s house too and left a nice message asking that Sofia be able to call me.

February 4, 2007
I awoke with a start. Tomorrow is the first of the hearings: tomorrow is the sentencing.
9:40AM I tried to call my children at LL’s number but the phone just rang interminably.
I was never able to speak with either of my children today, I called at 7:00, 7:30 and 8:00PM.

February 5, 2007
Dear Richard,
Please continue to schedule parenting time.
Allan

February 5, 2007
My children are afraid to speak with me on the phone. This has alwaus been true but it has become much more the case recently. Hannah acted like she was in for a beating when LL approached her and asked her who she was talking to. I ended up being able to speak with both Sofia and Hannah for sixteen minutes before they had to leave for LL’a belly dancing since there was no baby sitter.
“Oh I wish I could be your baby sitter,” I said.
“Yes, Daddy, this hurts all of us.” Responded Sofia.
But the conversation went well: I started with Hannah who has recently transitioned into a new developmental phase and is now very fluid on the telephone. Sofia continues to be her usual bubbly self. Sofia looked at several Nancy Drew books on her book shelf and picked the one that is called “Mystery on Crocodile Island.” She had not managed to speak out but the first sentence when the telephone call had to be cut short.

February 6, 2007
Mediation yielded nothing.
Helmer says: “In getting ready for today I spoke at length with Lorena’s lawyer, last week I spoke with Richard, and with Leeann and I want to let you know where they are coming from and Richard says look there is nothing that would indicate to me that Allan presents any threat to the kids ticki tacky stuff that would be considered different parenting styles that I am more loose that LL is more controlling but nothing that rises I cooperate the kids love me there is no indication of any feat he is dissatisfied with LL = and her refrains of this and off the record he is very disagreeing with Dial and Crumbo and with the time that he has spent with me and the girls there are no safety concerns and I have told mason that and also that conference calling Richard into the early parts of the mediation, e very single fucking syllable form every sentence has her perspective and her perspective we all live in different mental worlds. Leeann says that we are both enormously frustrating to deal with that we can not co parent and that I have my agenda you are more overt in my dissatisfaction with other people certainly more vocal long winded, LL has her own agenda and has not been compliant and believes that there will always be problems and she believes that any order needs to be written in stone and in that it needs to be incapable of multiple, interpretations. Leeann has issues with both of us and helps not, she things she can not help us. She backs to a certain degree Dial and Crumbo.

Today: we are working bill Blackburn,
I thought it was Fitzgerald.
Both of them are strong which is I think well in mediations and I don’t really have many use for limp mediators. Today is an opportunity not to win but rather to. I can’t imagine that we will have a productive session. Because I think we need Richard at the start. I do this: especially in break out sessions. The mediator is down in the conference room and over here we are laying out ideas and counter offers, let’s talk about the trial and the ups and down s of going to trials because I need to be presented with settlement versus trial – what does it mean and the negatives. Don’t want any small talk.
Give me the agreement will need to say this is what the expectations of LL are and Allan are. If there are problems the xyz happen built in ramifications. Del;atus inherent in the system and the lack of a reasonable tie breaker, judge walker has been parenthetical in the handling of the case because she has been too slow= the option that is available to me is to have a parenting coordinator who is a proiveate judge who if no one. And Kim and Ginger

I have to move slowly
This is going to go solid.
Patience wins the day.
I am going to ask you suppress for the purposes of today. I t just doesn’t help you today. He has an ability to sway. He is not going to act as an effective advocate for you if you think that you are. “
Games people play. I am not going to be the heavy.”

Any questions?

Richard this is John Helmers I am here on the Lasky-Headrick case and I need to speak with you before the meeting so could you please call me before the meeting starts.

Helmers describes the limitless functions of the family coordinator and their function with silly home details.

My real problem with Helmers right now is that he does not care for the Judge Patti Walker Fitzgerald and indeed is blaming her for putting things on the back burner.

The bond money will come back says Helmers.

Helmers signs two documents one of which allows Kim dials crap to enter into the courts proceedings – he says there is no way we can stop it. And the other of which allows all documents of any kind and nature to enter into the custody proceedings.

I went to the DA’s office to find out about the check for 550.00 and indeed it is good and posted and all is clear and life is OK. 1:19PM Mason Trenaman appears and is escorted to the conference room where I am located and then suddenly Helmers appears and escorts him away to have a secret talk. I follow along and they are talking about bottles of alcohol. Games people play.
.
!:26PM Helmers and Trenaman are shooting the bull in the back ground and life is a stupid, pedantic and heavy hell hole. By the way, I am very disappointed with Helmers so far. He has not learned the nature of this case.

1:28 LL arrives.
“Oh Rena, how are you?”
“Just fine,” she says.
“Oh, I’m glad you are doing just fine,” I say. I know that she is a front. She looks busy in her thoughts and then says “I am actually late. I was supposed to meet him. Have you seen Maaon?”
“Yes,” I respond matter of fact and LL is already out the door with Mason and John.
1:31 Blackburn arrives, introduces himself, we shake hand, say “good to see you.”

LL is busy in her thoughts and then says “I still need to make a call to the school – make sure the kids have someone to pick them up.” Then I hear LL on the phone say “Hi Cary, I just wanted to make sure that CEP is running and that the children will be there until until the normal hour too.” And “Oh great, I just wanted to check on that.” And then when she enters the conference room I hear her say “Oh great, coffee sounds great.”

Trenaman decides the sitting arrangement. Then he talks about the snow. Lorena wants to know if we are addressing “only the visitation issue.” Trenaman says we can address anything we want. Treneman has a bullish personality and fucks things up and Helmers points this out to him.

Mediator: I want you to reach clarity but it can be hard to reach that point of clarity and the truth may hurt and bear in mind that this is not because we, myself and mason and John are here. If there is pressure it does not come from us. This is the nature of the beast.

Mason: I think it is a generally agreed upon notion that these parties are not easily going to come to any agreements during this session.
Allan: May I respond to that?
Mediator: But let me start by asking you some questions first: When did you marry?

LL: May 31, 1988 (LL provides the official date and I do not argue.)
Mediator: When did you separate?
LL: October..
Mason interrupts with some legal jargon which is pure crap and then John adds to the crap and then I say:
A: Rena was answering and I am fine with her answer so can you just let her answer?
Mediator: Yes.
LL: October 20, 2002.
Mediator: and when did you divorce?
LL: answers.
Mediator: Who brought us back here?
Helmers: Let me provide a synopsis: Divorce was litigated in Texas, A dependency issue was litigated in Kentucky after the parties had moved from South America. And then under the Uniform Child Custody Act… Fitzgerald dismisses the petitions. The important players in this case are Ricahrd Nassr, LeeAnn Gardenr, Kim Dial and Ginger Crumbo.
Mediator: Ok how many children do you have?
LL: 2
Allan: 2
Mediator: and when were they born
LL: Sofia was born, on September 10, 1998
Allan: And Hannah was born on April 23rd, 2000
Mediator: And you have seen a counseling therapist?
LL: Yes and I don’t thingk this has been useful and so it does not seem important for us to meet.
Mediator: How many times have you seen her?
LL: About six times.
Mediator: And Allan do you agree with that?
Allan: We have seen her very few times. Maybe six.
Mediator: Ok, we will listen to what ever you have to say. It may be that one of your lawyers may intercede and unless you state otherwise, I am going to assume that you are in agreement with what your lawyer states. It happens that clients then complain that something is their lawyer’s statement and they disagree with them without indicating. Also, please note that agreements are tentative until there is a complete package and so in the event that you agree on something small or do not agree, do not feel that this means that the mediation should not continue. Litigation is cost prohibitive.

And then Lorena and I start talking about something little: talking with the children on the telephone. Lorena agrees that I am to be able to speak with Sofia and Hannah three times a week but she is somewhat wishy washy about when and how long it happens and then she says that she would prefer to change it from Monday, Wednesday and Friday to Sunday, Wednesday and Friday….

LL is trying to explain the telephone conversations I have with Sofia and Hannah happen naturally and he is no hindernis to their realization. This is an absolute lie.

The mediator asks me if I agree to the three calls per week idea and I respond “At the very least we would then be subscribing to the Judge’s orders.”

LL explains that I had not been able to speak with Sofia and Hannah since Sofia had been in time out.

The mediator is frustrated with not understanding what the point of agreeing on anything is if there is no way to check on it being realized.

The mediator tries to suggest that we can communicate by emailing one another. I wish that could work! I think it is clear that this does not work because LL does not let it work. “I agreed to one email per week,” she said. She was talking about an event with Craig Hansen to which I could not possibly agree. This was two years ago!

Then Helmers interceded and tried to explain that LL accuses me of sexually abusing my children. He referred to this as the 800lb gorilla. The mediator asked LL “Do you believe that Allan seually abused the children?” and LL nodded her head. “And so you want supervised visits?” the mediator continued and LL said “yes.” I asked LL why and she said “the lie detector test.”

Mediator: For how long do you want supervision?
LL did not know how to respond so trenaman stepped in and said that the therapists would be best able to answer that question. Trenaman continued to say that the therapists believe that the children are at high risk with Allan. He then went on to say that the therapists do not want to communicate with Allan because they consider me to be unreasonable and to act inappropriately. He claimed that the therapists tried to communicate with Allan and that it didn’t work.

LL explained that she wanted to defer to the therapists because they had already threatened to call CPS on her for endangering the children by letting them be with me. What a twist! Don’t those crazy therapists realize the extent to which LL is using them? The therapists are doing LL’s work for her.

I explained that Kim Dial and Ginger Crumbo had told me that only if I lie then I can be integrated in the rehabilitation program to be with my children.

Helmers states that Richard Nassr has seen none of the risk factors and there is no fear and indeed Allan and his children have an outstanding relationship.

Trenaman steps in and says that “Allan does not like Seven Counties.”
I tell Trenaman that he should not put words into my mouth. I tell him that he had done so at the court hearing and asked him to desist. He responded like a pit bull dog on the attack: “Ok, then you like seven counties and let me write up the agreement that you will work with them and you can sign it.” I did not flinch. I said “I have tried continuously to span the dialectic chasm between myself and seven counties. I have engaged in discourse, dialog and conversation with them. Seven counties had at one point wanted me to take part in a program and I had agreed to do so but not admitting that I had abused my children. Then Seven Counties had taken back it’s offer. In the end, it is not possible to work with Seven Counties.”

The Mediator asked LL “What does Allan have to do in order to get unsupervised visits?” LL says that I have to satisfy the requirements posited by Seven Counties. How confortable for her that she has them! Lorena defers to the therapists.

Lorena went on to say that Seven Counties is changing insurance companies and it may be that….






I called Craig Hansen to let him know that nothing had evolved and to ask him if he could write something to mitigate the unilateral impact of what he had written (he has written only derogatory things about my children and me.)

I called my children and was able to speak with Sofia but then BANG the phone line was cut off after 45 minutes and I was then not able to speak any more – the phone rang interminably.
But here is a description of that telephone conversation: It started with us recalling that we had left off in the “Crocodile Mystery” Nancy Drew book but then Sofia could no longer find it and so we decided to look at other things to converse. Hannah was watching a movie called “Ghost Busters” with Mommy and Sofia took her mobile phone down stairs and we started inventing our own school. We invented a whole school with all the rules of conduct, the referrals, the teachers (Hannah was the Spanish teacher, Sofia was the Principal and the substitute teacher…) I told Sofia that I knew she was doing well in school (LL had told me that she had been admitted to the AP program) and then we calculated that a couple of dogs who have two dogs ever generation will have a family 22 dogs large by the third generation. Sofia added all the people in her family together, and then I had to help her add all the people in my side of the family together. At 7:44PM we were cut off.


February 7 2007
I went to court and waited until I was the last on the docket list. Why? Because Helmers was not there. I called three times to try and locate him and even the Judge called him but he could not be found. He literally disappeared – which is strange because I had been with him the day before and he had assured me that we would talk about the mediation hearing today as well as deal with the court issue. The Judge told me that she did not advise me to speak. I spoke anyhow. I told her that I had just come in from Texas. I told her that there was a difficult custody case taking place in the family court on the 16th.


February 7, 2007
7:00PM I called my children at LL’s. The phone rang interminably.
7:15 again the same
7:45PM LL calls me on her cell phone and it appears as an unknown number on my cell phone and she tells me that their telephone does not seem to be working and so now, finally, after (bleep) years of asking for her to use her cell phone for me to be able to speak to my children (it matters not where they are) she concedes. The telephone conversation starts with Hannah but then the cell phone is put on speaker phone and I am talking to both my children together. It is a happy conversation. I start by asking them about insect and then go on to skin issues and then… here are some of the topics that we broached:

1 Fleas, found in cracks in the floor, rugs and pet’s fur: cause small bumps that look like a hive. Often in groups where clothes fit tightly
2 Bedbugs, found in cracks of floors, walls etc and in the bedding. Cause itchy red bumps surrounded by a red blister, usually two or three in a row.
3 Fire ants, mounds in pastures and lawns, cause immediate pain and swelling.
4 Bees and wasps, flowers and shrubs and picnic areas – can leave you with a hard time breathing and spread through out the world.
5 Ticks in wooded areas: hidden in air or skin – pull out with tweezers.
6 Sunburn
7 Asbestos – until 1970’s in schools as fireproofer.
8 Carbon monoxide – exhaust from any motor that uses gasoline but not from a motor that uses electricity.
9 Global warming – because of carbon dioxide. Makes the atmosphere hotter.


Mentioned that she and I had been cut off during our last telephone conversation. She said that she had kept talking and had no idea that the telephone had been cut off. I told her that I had tried to call her back. Neither of us knew what had happened. (It must have been LL.) Sofia And then I read them a children’s story that I found on line about a bed time routine. LL cut us off and Sofia was obviously unhappy. LL has to rule like an authoritarian. Like her own mother. She can otherwise not contain the distrust and explosive nature of her daughters.

February 7, 2007
Well I went to court and Helmers never appeared so the Judge said that I had to return tomorrow. This is pretty outstanding of Helmers.

February 8, 2007
Dear Lorena,
I am emailing you because the mediator thought this was a good way to exchange information.

As you must have heard (in the Wednesday call) Sofia was not cool with the way the telephone conversation on Tuesday was cut off. I tried calling back that Tuesday and no one picked up the phone. I called right back, which means that Sofia probably was still holding the phone in her hand and yet in Tuesday's conversation she gave no indication of knowing that the telephone had been ringing. What do you conclude?

And then yesterday, I called at 7:00PM, 7:15PM and 7:30PM -- the phone rang interminably and no one picked it up. (I let it ring about 6 times and then hang it up.) Then, you called me on your cell phone and I was able to speak with my children on your speaker phone. This happened in spite of your having told LeeAnn that I could not speak with the children on your cell phone... So, I am glad that you changed your mind, but what kept you from doing so for so long? This is the first time that I speak with Sofia and Hannah with them on your cell phone. Your cell phone number came up UNKNOWN on my cell phone.

Finally, the way you terminated the telephone conversation (the three of us were having) obviously made Sofia unhappy. It was abrupt, sudden and without notice. Can you please find a better way to terminate telephone conversations? I know that Craig Hansen has given you advice on this matter.
Thank you,
Allan

February 8, 2007
I called Richard Nassr to make sure there was a plan for me to see my children this weekend. I left a message.

February 8, 2007 I got a job. I will be a janitor at an old people’s home. Now I have to find a way to live near there cheap. It is very close to Nancy’s house.

February 8, 2007
I came to Helmer’s office half an hour before the court hearing. He was at his office but he was busy. Eventually he came in and he did apologize, but it was cursory and almost insignificant. He said “I’m sorry I stood you up.” I told him it was alright and I presumed that he had obtained my note from the day before stating as much. Then he sat down and pretended to be serious: Helmers wants to know if we should have LeeAnn Gardner testify. The problem with LeeAnn is that she is friendly with the crap from the KGB. LeeAnn thinks that “Allan and LL are both very difficult people to work with” and that “we both have agenda’s.” She has insinuated both to me and told Helmers that she is partial to the ideas espoused by Kim and Ginger. Why? On the basis of what? She has NEVER seen me with the children. When I asked her she said “they are professionals.” I felt cornered. That is not fair. Anyhow, Helmers came to me and asked me if I wanted LeeAnn on the stand: These are the kinds of questions for which LeeAnn might be good.
1. Who would you say is or was more interested in meeting with you: Allan or Lorena?
2. If it is true that Allan felt that you were only 1% useful, why do you think he felt that way?
3. How many times per month or per week would Allan have wanted to have you provide therapy to the two?
4. How many times per week would LL have wanted to have ou provide therapy to the two?
5. What did Lorena state were the reasons why she wanted Allan to have supervised visits during the therapy sessions?
6. Do those reasons seem reasonable to you?
7. Does it seem reasonable to you that Allan should still be supervised?
8. Did you speak with Richard Nassr? What was the outcome of those conversations?
9. What did you experience as Allan’s greatest frustrating factor?
10. What is your understanding of the purpose you were to fulfill in meeting with Allan and Lorena?
11. Did Allan want you to meet with Sofia and Hannah?
12. Did Allan want you to observe the parenting styles of each parent?
13. Did Allan come therapists of the children?
14. Do you think that if you have been given the job of assigning custody to the children and had been able to look at all the many facets involved (including speaking with Allan’s therapist) that Allan would not have been so frustrated with you? Do you think that LL would have been more frustrated with you?
15. Did you speak with Allan’s Therapist?
16. Did you speak with the children’s therapist?
17. Did you speak with Lorena’s therapist?
18. Who else did you speak with (Richard Nassr included.)
19. And so is there anything else upon which your understanding of this case is made?
20. Thank you.
21.
I told Helmers that I would tell him if I wanted Leeann to be present at the hearing by 5PM today.

Then I went to court. I waited for Helmers and he appeared at 1:52. To the best of my mathematical abilities that calculates to be fifty two minutes late. At that point he walked by me as I was typing on the laptop and sauntered into some lawyer office. At 1:52 he wandered past me again, this time going into the court room. A minute later, when the court room door opened I saw him coming out and we made eye contact – the nature of his expression lead me to believe that he had known I was there and was looking for someone else, presumably the state prosecutor.
Finally we appeared before the Judge and I got a sentence of conditional discharge and notice of conditions. The document states that a notice of conviction is hereby entered against you for violation of KRS530.050. I am hereby sentenced to 361 days , imprisonment, however this sentence is conditionally discharged for a period of two years on condition that you comply with the conditions set out below:
1. Not commit another criminal offense. Work faithfully at suitable employment as far as possible.
2. Notify the clerk of my address and of any changes.
3. Pay child support in the sum of $150/week. The first payment is due tomorrow, Feb 9, 007
4. All payments must be made to the DA.
5. Pay $127 court costs by April 27, 2007
Then there is a bunch of signatures (mine, the judge, Helmers, the assistant Jefferson County attorney recommending sentence.)

February 8, 2007
I called LeeAnn and let her know how disappointed I was in her work. She has restricted her work (with Craig Hansen’s endorsement, she said) so much that she was not actually able to help. I told her that I had spoken with Helmers and he had told me that he did not know if it was worth the while to have LeeAnn Gardener. I told LeeAnn that it was as bad to falsely accuse and she went even farther and said that the children were in even worse shape than they would be if they had been abused, (since) they have been coached. She thought that this crime was worse than the crime of actual abuse of the children – that being to coach children, use them, for this purpose. I am grateful to LeeAnn for introducing me to thinking of LL and Nancy as being even worse than pedophyles. I called her back and left a message that I needed her to come to court.

7:00PM I call LL. Of course she had already admitted to me that the telephone at her house does not work, but I tried it anyway. Then again today is Thursday.

February 8, 2007
Dear Scottie,
Where are you? How are you? I have attached a picture of Hannah, your biological daughter. She is a great child!
Your brother All


February 8, 2007
I have been to court three times this week. I have gotten a job at the Episcopal Church/old people’s home. I understand that this is not going to be a challenging job. That I will be completely unchallenged and un-intrigued by the menial nature of the job, but it has two great qualities to it. First, it pays me money – which is better than anything else right now and I will be able to state as much in court, at the custody hearing. Helmers does not think I have a chance of getting any kind of custody at this next hearing. He is going to file a number of motions, the most important one is that the issue of child abuse can not be re-litigated. When this was filed in the Texas case, it was rejected by the Judge. I do not know what will happen this time. “You are not allowed to take two bites out of the same apple,” has not been true.
I call Kelly, do you think she can help?
I call Michelle, do you think she can help? I left messages with both.
Peter offers to help.


February 9, 2007
“Un Segundo mas de vida yo a dios le pido,” elates me.

February 9, 2007
I called my children at 7:00PM to now avail – the phone just rang, and I kept calling every fifteen minutes until the hour was over and each time the phone simply rang.

February 9, 2007

12:30 PM Richard Nassr called. He complained that LL takes her time to respond to his requests and that he still has not heard from her regarding my children and I seeing each other this week end. Richard confirmed that he had been subpoenaed and that Helmers was going to give him a courtesy call one hour before he was to appear on the stand – so that I would not be worried if he does not show up in court. I told Richard that progress in this case depends entirely on him. Regarding Alicia, “there was no finding,” he said and that seemed really sad to me because there should have been the finding of excellent parenting. Richard said the he did not think that Helmers was worried – that I should not be worried, the things will probably go my way. Sally Brenzle can interview all the parties, I have an appointment only available at 9:30AM tomorrow morning. I agree to meet at Bob Evans and Newburg Lane. “I’m in bed by 9:30PM” Richard says, and I can tell that he is afraid that LL will not respond to his request on time.

February 9, 2007
Dear Daddy,
I was sentenced today. This is what the document says:

Finally we appeared before the Judge and I got a sentence of conditional discharge and notice of conditions. The document states that a notice of conviction is hereby entered against you for violation of KRS530.050. I am hereby sentenced to 361 days , imprisonment, however this sentence is conditionally discharged for a period of two years on condition that you comply with the conditions set out below:
1. Not commit another criminal offense. Work faithfully at suitable employment as far as possible.
2. Notify the clerk of my address and of any changes.
3. Pay child support in the sum of $150/week. The first payment is due tomorrow, February 9, 2007
4. All payments must be made to the DA.
5. Pay $127 court costs by April 27, 2007

Then there is a bunch of signatures (mine, the judge, Helmers, the assistant Jefferson County attorney recommending sentence.)
The Judge also ruled that you get your bond money back.

Ok, so what does this mean? It means a few things:
1. I now have a misdemeanor on my record.
2. It may be expunged in due course.
3. The child support payments were reduced by $50/month from the last hearing.
4. I must continue to pay this until the family court hearing states otherwise and if the family court reduces the child support payments then it is retroactive to the day I went to jail. If the family court increases, it's the same thing?

The family court hearing is on the 16th I think but it might be the 13th.

I got a job today working in an Episcopal Church.
Lots of love,
Allan

February 9, 2007
Allan, Is the child support payment of $150/week or $150/month? If it is by the week, then it amounts to almost $665/month, which is more than you have had to pay before, if I am not mistaken. Also, how does this amount compare to your salary at the Episcopal Church? Please mail or fax me a copy of that court order.

Let me know what transpired at your mediation.

Do you still have the list of points to be covered at the Family Court hearing? If not, I will send it to you. There have been too many hearings at which one or two points get decided, and the rest is left up in the air. This time, please make sure you and Helmers cover all the points. I wrote to Helmers that, if he decides to write a motion in preparation for the Family Court hearing, I would be glad to make my comments.

Your Dad

February 9, 2007
Lorena has hired a bullish lawyer, Mason Trenaman.

February 10, 2007
Allan,
As I explained to you Wed when I called you on my cell phone so that you could speak to the children, my land line is not working. I am not sure if it is the line or the phone units, but probably the line.
We will call you tomorrow on my cell phone after the kids get home from their sleepover which will be at 12:00pm.
I left a message with Richard letting him know that the 9:30am time would not work.
If a slot comes open for Sunday or late Saturday, we could probably do that. Let me know if there are other options. Again, the children had this planned before Richard tentatively scheduled the am for a visit. Until late this week, there was no discussion at all about a visit. We never said and the court order never said there had to be a visit this weekend--I have just been saying yes each time asked. I still would have accommodated this weekend had the time worked out.
I am most in favor of every other weekend as is usual for divorced parents. I think it would be fine for you to do a Sat visit & a Sun visit --2 in one weekend--as long as we are on the every other weekend schedule. Think about that idea to see if you agree with it before we meet on Tuesday.
Let me know if any other times open up for visits this weekend, Lorena
February 10, 2007
Yes--we are going to trial on Tuesday. The visit tomorrow morning will not work with the children's schedule. Lorena
February 10, 2007
Dear Allan,
Sofia did not display distress at all about the Tuesday call. She only mentioned in passing that you got cut off mid-sentence. Meanwhile, you got to talk to her a good while before that happened. She mentioned it again during your Wednesday call in order to pick up where you left off. She did not sound upset to me.
I called on the cell phone because my regular land line is inoperable. I told this to you at the beginning of the call--you act like you do not know this. I do not have to explain to you why I did not use my cell phone in the past--the regular phone worked just fine. You are choosing to pick at issues rather than being happy that you got a phone call despite the phone line not working. The children were not in the least bit unhappy about getting off of the phone. They were excited and in a good mood all evening. They continued to giggle & have fun all the way to bed. They had a 5 minute warning about getting off of the phone & were quite eager to comply. I then said "one more minute" and Sofia chose to say "I gotta go daddy" and hang up right then without taking the minute.
Allan

Now how does one respond to this? I considered that both the fact that LL is preventing the children and I from meeting this weekend and the fact that she is suggesting that I get to see the children at most every fortnight and the fact that she addresses the last email to me with “Dear Allan,” (for the first time in two years?) and I also note that Sofia sounded very morose when she said “gotta go Daddy,” and the fact that she did not take the extra minute indicates the pressure that she experiences with LL about speaking with me… calls for the following response.

She may be softening, or she may have been drunk… the kids are at a sleepover and it’s Friday night and the emails she sent today she sent late at night. I got them after midnight and the third email was sent at 12:56AM!

February 10, 2007
Dear Sofia, Mommy and Hannah,
The attached ‘snoopyism’ is for you.
Lots of Love,
Daddy

The ‘snoopyism’ is in the February 2007 folder. And then, I address what needs to be taken care of in LL’s emails:

February 10, 2007
Dear Lorena,
Do you agree that Sofia did not display happiness? She was certainly sad, she sounded morose as she said "I gotta go Daddy."
Thanks for making your cell phone available. I am only stating that many telephone calls may have happened in the past if your cell phone had been available in the past -- for all the times you were not at home at the appointed time.
Please keep trying to call me if I do not pick up the phone the first time -- just in case. As you know, I do not have your number so there is no way that I can call you if (god forbid!) I miss the one call.
I believe that children need both their parents. Furthermore, in our case, the distance that has been forced on my children, calls for more frequent meetings between Sofia, Hannah and me than the once/fortnight you are suggesting.
Thank you for sending me three emails so very late last night.
Allan


.
February 10, 2007
Thanks for the follow-up Allan. I attempted to schedule this appointment well in advance of our contract goal (24 hours). On Friday, I left three messages for Lorena requesting that she confirm this appointment. She returned the call once (I was interviewing at the time) but never left a message. See you Tuesday. Richard

February 10, 2007
Richard, I left a message for you last night around 7 or 8pm. Did you get it?
Lorena Lasky
LL and Richard are at odds about whether a message was left or not. Well, who are you more likely to believe? You know, LL’s is a funny way to respond to Richard: Richard is clear about making three attempts and getting a call with no message from LL. LL then responds in a manner that seems to indicate that she did not read his email and contradicts Richard.

It’s possible that LL is somewhat schizoid. Last night I was taken by the fact that she wrote (even if in her drunkenness) ‘Dear Allan,’ and now I see that she is on her deliberate war path – a path she feels she must take to protect herself from Seven Counties? That is a new twist.

I wonder what this trip is like for someone like LL who hangs her hopes on lies and is now always trying to wiggle worm more time with protection clauses and ‘potential this that and the other’ measures? What is she hoping for? Nuts! (and evil.)

Well, do you recall that LL had stated in an email February 10, 2007 (after midnight last night) that

We will call you tomorrow on my cell phone after the kids get home from their sleepover which will be at 12:00pm.

Well, I never got that call. After waiting over an hour, I called LeeAnn and Richard to let them know that not only had my children not been able to see me this morning but their telephone interaction had been lost.

1:10PM Michelle, Justice’s mother called me. She wanted to know why I had called her and left messages asking for her help. I told her that I needed character references and preferably from a woman and a mother. She told me she would think about it and that she would call me tomorrow. This is a complicated situation for her for two reasons: The first is that she herself is caught in her own divorce, the second is that her friend Jen is close to Rebecca Lasky and has invited her to think of me as she otherwise would not.

February 10, 2007: At 1:04 Richard sent this email and I got it at 1:30PM and Richard is finally holding on:
No, Lorena, I didn't receive your message. Just as well though, I assumed you couldn't do it when I didn't hear from you. I regret that my schedule has become so limited. Richard


February 10, 2007: Farfar writes a letter to Helmers.
February 10, 2007

John H. Helmers, Jr., Esq.
Helmers Demuth & Walton

Ref. Allan Lasky-Headrick

Dear John:

After the school in Memphis for which Allan had been appointed as director failed to open for lack of funds, Allan attended a job lair last week and the best he could find was a job at an Episcopal Church, where he sweeps and mops and vacuum cleans for about $900 a month. He is required by the terms of his suspended sentence to remain employed, but his present job is no solution, either to his own need to be economically self-sustaining, much less for the need he has to contribute to the support of his children.

In Texas an attempt was made to have the judge make a finding of fact that Allan had not sexually abused his children in Paraguay, so as to enable him to take a teaching job in Texas, but that attempt failed. Lorena indicated her objection to it, and the judge made no finding of fact. I believe the present situation warrants another attempt to clear the air on this matter. As you know, Lorena (or perhaps another person acting for her) has been informing the school authorities in Louisville that Allan has committed (or is accused of having committed) sexual abuse against his daughters, with the result that Allan is unable to apply for a teaching job and that even substitute teaching, which he was able to do when he first came to Louisville, has also been blocked.

If Allan is adequately to support his children, it is necessary for him to have a teaching job or an administrative position with school, which pays a decent salary. To that end, the air must be cleared in respect of his alleged sexual abuse. Any attempt to obtain a ruling from the judge, to the effect that there is not sufficient evidence to warrant a finding that sexual abuse was committed, will be strenuously resisted by Lorena and by the therapists she has employed, but it worth a try, if only for the sake of the children. You have a “laundry list” of matters to be raised at the February 13 hearing, and Allan will update that list with the change in his employment situation. To that list, I suggest you add a request for a ruling that there is not sufficient evidence to warrant a finding to support the allegation that Allan committed sexual abuse against his daughters. Such a finding of fact may help him get a teaching job.

That issue, together with Allan’s right to be with his children without supervision, will be the main bones of contention at the hearing. Load your guns and wear your heaviest armor when you go into that battle.

Sincerely yours,

William C. Headrick

January 4, 2007
To John Helmers, Esq.

I suggest that the following matters should be dealt with at the February custody hearing. The aim of this list of points is to have a custody decree which is as complete as possible, for the present and the foreseeable future.

Lorena and Allan would retain joint custody, under the terms described below. The terms of their joint custody will be supported by the testimony of Richard Nassr and the letter of Dr. Raymond Hawkins, who evaluated Allan during eight or more sessions in the early part of 2005, which he attended in order to comply with the condition in the decree of Judge Dietz allowing him certain visitation rights. If the terms described below are not substantially granted, then Allan requests that another hearing be scheduled in six months for the purpose of reviewing the parenting situation.

1) On 4 days of the seven day week, Allan will have his children from 4PM until 8PM. If Allan and Lorena can not agree to the days of the week, then the days will be Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday.

2) On days when Allan has parenting time, the children would be picked up at Lorena’s home and returned there at the end of the visit, unless Lorena and Allan agreed on another location.

3) All parenting would be without supervision.

4) During the week, as in the past, Allan would be allowed three telephone conversations with each of the children, on any day the children do no see Allan, lasting approximately 20 minutes with each child. The conversations are to take place between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m., unless the parents agreed on a different time. The telephone calls could be initiated by either parent. Allan shall also have the right to send emails to the children. It will be the responsibility of Lorena to bring these emails to the attention of the children and to facilitate their replies.

4B) Lorena would be allowed three telephone conversations with each of the children, on any day the children are with Allan, lasting approximately 20 minutes with each child. The telephone calls could be initiated by either parent. Lorena shall also have the right to send emails to the children. It will be the responsibility of Allan to bring these emails to the attention of the children and to facilitate their replies.


5) If for any reason Allan is unable to be with the children for the amount of time allotted to him on any week or to have the prescribed telephone conversations, the time missed could, at his option, be made up on the following week or, in the case of the telephone conversations, during the following week.

5B) Same as above for Lorena.

6) Allan would have possession of the children during the second half of the school vacations. During vacations, Lorena would have the same parenting rights and telephone time with the children, and the same right to send and receive e-mails from them, as Allan enjoys during vacations. Lorena will pick up the children from Allan’s home in Louisville when it is her turn to have the children and Allan will do the same when it is his.

6A) As a fall-back position, if it appears that Allan having possession during the full vacation time would not be in the best interest of the children, Allan would have possession of the children for half of the vacation time, and Lorena for the other half of the vacation time, as determined between them by mutual agreement.

6b) At least twice during the year, while the children are on vacation, Allan will have the right to travel with the children to visit their grandparents, who live in Durham, NC. One such a visit, which would take place during the summer vacation, would last approximately one week and the other, during the winter break, may be for four days.

6c) Lorena and Allan will allow all relatives of the children to speak with the children by telephone, send and receive emails, and to send gifts and regular mail.

7) Allan and Lorena would both have the right to attend school activities and to consult with the teachers concerning the childrens’ behavior and academic work. Both Lorena and Allan shall have the right to attend the childrens’ extra-curricular activities, such as soccer, ballet or swimming. During the school semester, Lorena would be obligated to keep Allan informed of any medical problems affecting the children. Conversely, while Allan has possession of the children during vacation, he will be obligated to keep Lorena informed of any medical problems affecting the children.

8) The amount of child support, while the children are in Lorena’s possession, would be based on Allan’s net income per month. During 2007, his gross salary will be of $1000.00. From that amount must be deducted income tax, real estate tax, cost of repairs on the Austin house, Social Security contributions, and contributions to Medicare, estimated to be a total of $1,000 per month during 2007. Allan’s net disposable income would then be of $0.00 per month. His obligation to pay child support to Lorena during this year would be calculated on the basis of that figure.

9) Conversely, while Allan has possession of the children during vacations, Allan would be discharged from the obligation of paying child support and Lorena would pay child suport to Allan based on her net income from employment plus any other sources of income she might have.

10) If either parent’s employment is terminated or their salaries are modified, or if Allan’s house in Austin is vacated by the present tenant, either parent would be required immediately to notify the other, his or her attorney, and the court. At such times, Allan would pay child support to Lorena based on the percentage provided under Kentucky law. Similarly, during vacations, while Allan has possession of the children, Lorena would pay child support to Allan based on the same percentage.

11) The cost of medical insurance, to the extent not provided by the State, would be for the account of Lorena as a part of the childrens’ cost of living to which Allan would be contributing in the form of child support. Medical and dental care not covered by insurance (e.g. braces for Sofia) would be covered in equal parts by each parent.


February 10, 2007
And when I was finally able to speak with my children it was 6:20PM and the children were really excited to tell me that they had gotten some jewelry made of Sapphire which is Sofia’s birthstone and gold which is nice for Hannah. Then I asked my children from the following array of topics:

1 Kidzbop CD’s, do you have any?
2 Dakota Fanning, do you like her?
3 Do you like That's So Raven, or Hannah Montana, or Zoe 101
4 Do you enjoy solitary play - video games? TV? Reading? Dolls? Construction sets? Or crafts?
5 Do you love sports, baseball? Like Football? And basketball?
6 Do you enjoy bicycling? Skating? Swimming? What other forms of active play, though they are not as proficient at them as they will be at ten do you enjoy (Ballet? Belly Dancing?)
7 1, 2, 3, 6 which is not like the others?
8 63, 57, 98, 01 which is not like the others?
9 22, 21, 20, 19 which is not like the others?

Note: These books are arranged roughly in order of difficulty with the simplest books first.
The Dragonslayers
Bruce Coville, Katherine Coville (Illustrator), Patricia MacDonald (Editor)
What would you do if a fierce dragon were to come to your village to destroy everything you knew and loved? In The Dragonslayers, King Mildred faces that situation. Ages 8-10.
Rosa
Nikki Giovanni and Bryan Collier
Caldecott Honor. A wonderfully illustrated biography of Rosa Parks. Ages 8-10.
Mayfield Crossing
Vaunda Micheaux Nelson and Leonard Jenkins (illustrator)
A shocking depiction of prejudice and integration during the pre-civil rights era. Parents should be involved with this book.
Belva Lockwood Wins her Case
Drollene P. Brown,
Describes the struggles and triumphs of Belva Lockwood, the teacher, suffragette, lawyer, and peace activist who became the first woman to practice law before the Supreme Court and a candidate for president in 1884 and 1888. Ages 8-11.
Wildlife Rescue: The Work of Dr. Kathleen Ramsay
Jennifer Owings Dewey,
What happens to birds and animals injured in the wild? Some go to the National Wildlife Center in New Mexico, established by Dr. Kathleen Ramsay in 1985, which successfully returns 80 percent of its "patients" to natural or nearly natural environments. In four fascinating chapters, this book explores the challenges faced by Ramsay and her dedicated staff in their unusual veterinary practice.
Understood Betsy
Dorothy Canfield Fisher
This novel is about a young girl whose family teaches her that the world is a dangerous place. She begins the story as a frightened, self-doubting girl lacking in self-confidence. Due to a family illness, Betsy is sent to live with other relatives in the country. With them, Betsy builds self-confidence and self-esteem and becomes a responsible, happy little girl who knows that whatever difficulties present themselves, she will be able to deal with them. Ages 8-11.
The Ordinary Princess
"The Ordinary Princess" follows the quest of Princess Amy to make something of an ordinary life for herself, to go along with her very ordinary appearance. During which time, she meets -- and falls in love with -- a young "man-of-all-work" named Peregrine.
Pippi Longstocking
Pippi Longstocking is perhaps the world's first child superhero. Able to lift strong policemen with her bare hands! Capable of climbing tall houses and trees with virtually no effort at all! Rescuing children from burning buildings and adults from snobby talk!
The Brooklyn Bridge
Elizabeth Mann and Alan Witschonke (illustrator)
Sometimes overly technical, but a great account of the art and architecture of the Brooklyn Bridge. Ages 8-11.
To Space and Back
Sally Ride
Much has been written about the vast scientific importance of space exploration, but very little about the human side of being a member of an astronaut crew. In this book, America's first woman astronaut answers questions most frequently asked about a journey through space. Ages 8-11.
The Trouble with Tuck
Theodore Taylor
An inspiring story of a triumphant dog. Ages 8-11.
Charlotte's Web
As the story opens, eight year old farm girl Fern Arable stops her father from killing a piglet who has been labeled the runt of the litter. The little pig, whom Fern names Wilbur, becomes one of the central figures in the story. Eventually he will be befriended by Charlotte, the wise and loving spider mentioned in the book's title. Ages 8-11.
Scooter
Vera B. Williams
Set in a New York City housing project, this "series of vignettes forms a bouncy oversize novel about a girl's adjustment to her parents' divorce," wrote PW. Ages 8-11.
The Tale of Despereaux: Being the Story of a Mouse, a Princess, Some Soup, and a Spool of Thread
Kate DiCamillo and Timothy Basil Ering (illustrator)
Newbery Medal. The adventures of Desperaux Tilling, a small mouse of unusual talents, the princess that he loves, the servant girl who longs to be a princess, and a devious rat determined to bring them all to ruin. Ages 8-12.
The Birchbark House
Louise Erdrich
Omakayas is a little Native American girl living on an island in Lake Superior in 1847. Over the course of a year, an epidemic changes her view of her family forever, and she learns the truth about her heritage. Ages 8-12.
Yolanda's Genius
Carol Fenner
Newbery Honor. Yolanda is determined to convince the world of her brother's special gifts. Ages 8-12.
Confucius: The Golden Rule
Russel Freedman
Do you think you will be quoting your teacher when you grow up? Confucius was a teacher and people are still quoting him after 25 centuries!
Homesick: My Own Story
Jean Fritz
1983 Newbery Honor. The author's fictionalized version, though all the events are true, of her childhood in China in the 1920's.
Her Stories: African American Folktales, Fairy Tales, and True Tales
Virginia Hamilton, Leo Dillon (Illustrator), Diane Dillon (Illustrator)
Ms. Hamilton shows us that her extraordinary gift is for bringing, and keeping, history alive. Ages 8-12.
The Volcano Disaster
Peg Kehret
"The Volcano Disaster" is a fast-paced action adventure, set on the slopes of Mount Saint Helens just minutes before the volcano is about to erupt. Ages 8-12.
Knock at a Star: A Child's Introduction to Poetry
X. J. Kennedy
A collection of poems arranged in such categories as poems that make you smile, send messages, or share feelings; poems that contain "beats that repeat" or "word play"; and special kinds of poems such as limericks, songs, and haiku. Ages 8-12.
The View From Saturday
E.L. Konigsburg
Newbery Medal. Four students, with their own individual stories, develop a special bond and attract the attention of their teacher, a paraplegic, who chooses them to represent their sixth-grade class in the Academic Bowl competition. Ages 8-12.
Vision of Beauty: The Story of Sarah Breedlove Walker
Kathryn Lasky
The daughter of poor sharecroppers, Sarah went from working as a laundress t being one of the richest women in America.,
The Lost Flower Children
Janet Taylor Lisle and Satomi Ichikawa (illustrator)
This story blends fantasy and reality in this story of coping with death and loss.
Erie Canal: Canoeing America's Great Waterway
Peter Lourie
This is a great way to teach kids about the Erie Canal.
Every Time I Climb a Tree
David McCord, Marc Simont (Illustrator)
Twenty-five poems with short lines on such varied subjects as a lost turtle, a fence, the wind, jam, a witch, and bananas and cream.
Sparks
Graham McNamee
When Todd moves to fifth grade from his special needs class, he feels he must leave his old friends behind. Though he learns his lessons in school slowly, he quickly learns who his real friends are. Ages 8-12.
Shiloh
Phyllis Reynolds Naylor (Author), Barry Moser (Illustrator)
Newbery Medal. When he finds a lost beagle in the hills behind his West Virginia home, Marty tries to hide it from his family and the dog's real owner, a mean-spirited man known to shoot deer out of season and to mistreat his dogs. Ages 8-12.
Cut from the Same Cloth : American Women of Myth, Legend,
Robert D. San Souci, Brian Pinkney (Illustrator)
"Stories culled from the melting pot of American culture (Hawaiian, Eskimo and Native American, among others) unite a league of female folk heroes as courageous, irascible and noble as any of their more famous male counterparts," said PW. Ages 8-12.
Falling Up
Shel Silverstein
Excellent collection of entertaining poems. Ages 8-12.
CDB!
William Steig
Visual brain teasers.
Golem
David Wisniewski
Caldecott Medal. Golem is a dramatic tale of supernatural forces invoked to save an oppressed people. It also offers a thought-provoking look at the consequences of unleashing power beyond human control. The afterward discusses the legend of the golem and its roots in the history of the Jews. Ages 8-12.
All the Small Poems and Fourteen More
Valerie Worth, Natalie Babbitt (Illustrator)
This book is a great collection of poems about nature. Ages 8-12.
The Adventures of Sojourner: The Mission to Mars that Thrilled the World
Susi Trautmann Wunsch
As the one who actually got to remotely drive Sojourner on Mars, I have to say that Susi has done an outstanding job of capturing the excitement of this once in a lifetime event in space exploration. She goes into great detail about how we created the rover and lander, launched and guided them over 120 million miles to Mars and finally how we landed safely and explored the surface. The numerous illustrations and photos in the book should really make the mission come alive to young readers. The primary Mars Pathfinder Rover Driver gives this book two big thumbs up! -- Brian K. Cooper. Ages 8-12.
The Mary Celeste: An Unsolved Mystery from History
Jane Yolen (Author), Heidi Elisabet Yolen Stemple (Author),

Pictures of Hollis Woods
Patricia Reilly Giff
Newbery Honor. A troublesome twelve-year-old orphan, staying with an elderly artist who needs her, remembers the only other time she was happy in a foster home, with a family that truly seemed to care about her.
The Doll in the Garden: A Ghost Story
Mary Downing Hahn
In this book, Ashley and her mother move to a house in the suburbs to begin a new life after the death of Ashley's father. The house they move to is a portion of a larger house owned by a cranky older lady (Miss Cooper) who constantly threatens to throw them out. Ashley discovers a buried antique doll and challenges Miss Cooper's crankiness in order to return the doll to its orginal owner and learns about making peace with people who have died. Ages 8-13.
Walter Wick's Optical Tricks
Goofiness. Utter utter goofiness. Using 4" x 5 " and 8" x 10" view cameras, photographer Walter Wick has done what many would have thought was well nigh impossible. He has systematically photographed some of the world's best known optical illusions.
Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone
Rescued from the outrageous neglect of his aunt and uncle, a young boy with a great destiny proves his worth while attending Hogwarts School for Witchcraft and Wizardry.
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Dare to return to Hogwarts in Harry Potter's second adventure! The Dursleys were so mean and hideous that summer that all Harry Potter wanted was to get back to the Hogwarts School for Witchcraft and Wizardry. But just as he's packing his bags, Harry receives a warning from a strange, impish creature named Dobby who says that if Harry Potter returns to Hogwarts, disaster will strike.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Harry is now a 13-year old, and concerned mostly with classes, Quidditch (a wizard sport), and the fact that he's not allowed to visit the local wizard village of Hogsmeade with his friends on the weekends. One of the reasons for this is that Sirius Black, a convicted murderer, has broken out of Azkaban, the wizard prison, and word has it that he's out to get Harry.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Fourteen-year-old Harry Potter joins the Weasleys at the Quidditch World Cup, then enters his fourth year at Hogwarts Academy where he is mysteriously entered in an unusual contest that challenges his wizarding skills, friendships and character, amid signs that an old enemy is growing stronger.

I chatted on line with Cecilia for a very long time. We spoke a great deal about LL and my daughters. She is very supportive and hopes for the best in the courthouse on Tuesday.

I called Farmor and she confirmed with me that LL had never responded to Farfar’s email from a few months ago. Farfar told me how Farmor had presented LL with the reality that LL had undermined my ability to get a teaching job.


February 11, 2007
HOLA ALLAN, COMO ESTAS ALLAN? QUE YA NO ME ESCRIBE ALLAN CUANDO ENTRO Y VEO UN MENSAJE TUYO ESTOY MUY FELIZ PERO CUANDO NADIE SE ACUERDA DE MI ME SIENTO MUY INFELIZ ALLAN,COMO ESTA YO ESTOY MUY BIEN Y MI HERMANA YA VA TENER SU BEBE,MI HERMANO ESTA GORDO MI HERMANO RAMON, AAAAAAAAAAAALLAN QUIERO TRAERLE AMI HERMANO EVER,PARA QUE ESTE CON NOSOTROS SIDIOS QUIERE, A MI HERMANO PEDRO YA NO TIENE SOLUCION. CADA VES ESTA PEOR LA DROGA E DOMINA Y MI MAMA ESTA MAL NO PUEDO ASER NADA POR QUE NO ESTOY ALLA PERO CUANDO ME VAYA ESTOY SEGURO QUE AYUDARE A MI MAMA Y MIS OTROS HERMANOS. A PEDRO NO PUEDO AYUDAR PERO A LOS OROS SI AYUDARE PARA QUE NO SIGUEN IGUAL QUE PEDRO ,YA MADURE MAS MUCHOS ALAN SER INFELIZ AYUDA PARA VER LO QUE HAY ADELANTE Y ATRAS. Y YO APRENDI Y MUCHOSSSSSS BESOS ALAN SALUDOS A HANNAY SOFIA A TU MAMI Y PAPI


And this certainly merits a response:
Querida Fátima,
Por favor dile a tu hermana que yo la felicito por su bebé, y a ti Fátima, por ser una tia – de las mejores tias que hay en el mundo. Traer a tu familia de Paraguay a Espana es una Buena idea – para difundir la mierda de las drogas. Yo sé que Pedro hace drogas porque lo vi endrogado cuando visité a tu familia en Paraguay. Aldo, el hermano de Francy, habló mucho tiempo con tu Papá, y me dijo que piensa que tu Papá también hace drogas pero tu Papá no lo confirmó. Es horrible que Pedro domine a tu Mamá, pero ella es fuerte. Ella me parecio muy fuerte cuando la vi en Mayo. Ella no come mucho porque le da toda la comida a sus hijos, pero ella tiene una fuerza interna muy feróz y bonita.
Yo debería de haber visto a Sofia y Hannah este fin de semana pero Lorena se me escapó y no sé como verlas. Así es mi vida.
Bueno, queridissima Fátima, sigue siendo lo que eres y te deseo y a toda tu familia lo mejor en la vida. Como se llama el bebé aun que no ha nacido?
Allan

And then I sent yet another email to Fatima,
Fatima, tu estas comunicando con Lorena por email? Por favor, tratalo, Te escribo mas despues!
Allan

And another one:
Querida Fatima,
La verdad es que siempre pienso en ti y en tu familia. Tu familia es muy importante para mi, y tu eres una de las personas más importantes para mi -- porque tu sabes lo que era mi familia en Paraguay.

Lorena esta diciendo mentiras y les esta enseňando a mis hijas estas mentiras para mantenerlas fuera de mi alcance. Es por eso que casi nunca puedo ver a mis hijas. Sofia y Hannah te necesitan para que tu les puedas decir la verdad – yo estoy bajo una orden de la corte que me prohibe hablar sobre Paraguay con mis hijas..
Te quiero,
Allan

And so I am learning how afraid people are in the United States. When things go badly for a long time, it is very hard to find anyone to help. It is so much easier to leave those just fall through the woodwork. Can I expect Dawn-Michelle, Stephanie, Michelle and Kelly to come to court with me on Tuesday and speak out what they know to be true? Michelle is the only one who has called me back and she did promise that she would call me back today but I doubt she will help me at this point. She may begin to help me if I have some kind of visitation rights with my children. Then she may have me bring Sofia and Hannah to her home to visit with her son Justice, but it is too much to ask of her, that she come and speak to the court about my ways with children. Shame that!

I will ride this out. There is a lot to ride out. Mel (the cute lesbian from Heine Brothers) called me just now wanting her bed back! I have had it in storage since I got the house on Zane street, since Brian moved out of his house (it was originally Brian’s bed) – that’s some eight months ago. The problem with giving it back to her is that it is in storage in Memphis. Yesterday I saw Mel at Heinebrother’s and she made no mention of it. Synchronicity: when things fall at the worst (and best) possible moments.

I don’t know how applicable these lyrics are but they go “I hear the train coming and time keeps dragging on, but that train keeps on rolling on to where ever. When I hear the whistle blowing I hang my head and cry.”


February 12, 2007
Dear Allan,
During mediation, we clarified that Monday was no longer a phone call day. the phone call days are Tues, Wed., and Friday. We also discussed Sunday as a good option. It is fine with me if we do Tues, Wed., & Sunday. Either way, I decided to have Sofia call you tonight anyhow to (1) let her tell you the big news about winning the young authors competition, and (2) remind you that the call has been changed to Tuesday since I thought you might have forgotten. I guess the reminder did not work because by the time you wrote this email, you had forgotten again.
I also told you on the phone that court is cancelled tomorrow & that I am going to resume the meetings with Lee Ann Gardner. I said I would write this in an email to confirm. I will call Lee Ann this week to schedule. You said your availability is after 3:30? Is that on any day? Did your availability change because of employment reasons?
I will also be asking Richard if he can schedule the visits for several weeks at a time so we can plan ahead.
We will call tomorrow.

Lorena Lasky

February 13, 2007: I respond to LL in the morning…
Dear Lorena,
During mediation you clarified that Monday could no longer be a phone call day. That is true. The next sentence is not true. I was know this because I was taking notes. I wrote that we discussed whether Tuesday or Sunday would be a better calling day and both you and I suggested that Sunday was better. I suggested it first and then you agreed with me because "the children are not in school that day." Thus, the call days are Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. Also, this means that you called yesterday because (1) You had missed the Sunday call and (2) tell me the big news about Sofia winning the Young Authors Competition. Thank you for that.

The answers to both your questions below are "yes." That is to say, "Yes, I would like to see my children after 3:30PM, meet you at LeeAnn's, call my children, meet with you for green tea or croissant au beurre, etc..." and "Yes, it is in part due to employment reasons but also to make sure that I can get there in time. ..I am worried , that with last minute decisions, if I am to be somewhere in the morning, that I might be unable to get there in time." For example, there was one time when I did not know that I was to see my children until 20 hours before the Parenting Time was to take place in the early morning. If you can schedule for any even to take place after 3:30PM, that is always better. If you have to schedule for an earlier time, then please give me a week's notice.

Yes, it is a good idea to plan for several weeks in advance with Richard. Thank you for recommending that. I do however hope my children and I can spend time every week end. It would not be possible for me to adequately or reasonably parent them otherwise.

As you know, it is crazy that I am in this position, that Sofia and Hannah should be in the mire, and that I should be getting and sending emails to you like has been going on since you arrived in the USA and I will always hope that this can become better.

Sincerely,
Allan

February 12, 2007
Dear Lorena,
Could you please set up an appointment with LeeAnn
asap and after 330pm, I would very much appreciate it.

Thank you,
Allan.


February 12, 2007
Dear John,
Please send me an email detailing all options
available to me at this point. Also, let me know when
I should call you or see you after 330pm any day.
Thank you,
Allan.


February 12, 2007
7:00 I try to call my children unsuccessfully.
7:15 I try again with the same result.
7:21 LL calls me and puts me with the children. She tells me that Sofia has important news to tell me, that the hearing has been postponed and that Mason told her to re-contact LeeAnn Gardner.
Sofia has Big news! I told by LL and then Sofia said “I got rid of and I’m getting braces” and Hannah will get braces too, 22 days before her birthday, But it turned out that this was not the big news, it was the biggest news in Sofia’s mind but it was not the bigges news in LL’s mind, so LL primed Sofia for the other news and it is that she got the second prize in the young author competition. Sofia told me that it is 6 pages and I asked her if she could email it to me.
Lorena lets me talk for 8 minutes only because the children “had to eat dinner.”
Lorena tells e that she is going to contact LeeAnn and set up an appointment.
Lorena tells me that the children need to eat dinner so we hang up.

February 12, 2006: I email Richard and LL about the phone call.
Dear Lorena,
I spoke with the kids for only 8 minutes today. You prevented more conversation because of "dinner." Please make this up.
Allan.


February 13, 2007
I called LeeAnn to tell her about the phone call and to ask her to try and get me a meeting time after 3:30PM with LL.

February 13, 2007
Allan,

I think that you have options available to you.

They are in two categories.

First, you can wait until the hearing as scheduled. That is self explanatory.

Second, we can seek interim relief. The relief sought would be dependant on what you want. I would suggest that we modify the supervisor - to include friends and/or family members. One option would be for you to have spring break with the children in NC with your parents acting as supervisors.

Think about it and get back with me.

John.

February 13, 2007
Dear John,
Interim relief is of categorical importance and there are two aspects that need to be dealt with.
1. Yes, let’s ask to modify the supervisor to include friends like Kelly McCarthy-Kenning – massage therapist, Michelle (Don’t know her last name), Peter Van Howe – elementary school teacher, Rob Kearn (? Walker-Fitzgerald is the judge in his divorce case!), Brian Bradshaw, David Herman, Dawn-Michelle Waddell and any of my family members including Lorena herself. I would also like to be able to spend more than two hours per week with my children. I think that a minimum of four is reasonable. (Members of my family are William and Inga Headrick (parents), Mark Headrick (brother), Cecilia de Moya (sister) and her husband Eric de Moya, Isabelle and Michael Hurewitz (cousin and husband) and their children Zeldovich and Avi as well as my Uncle and Aunt Daniel and Kate Headrick. I would like to add to this list a distant cousin called George Moryadas and his wife, Andrea, and child.)
2. I would like to spend Spring Break with my children at my parent’s home. They will come to Louisville to pick them up with me and they will return them as well – or at least one of them will for each trip.
3. If the next hearing is after the summer vacation starts then some provision for a similar trip should be made for that time as well.
4. The child support payments need to be modified. I can not pay what is currently ordered. I am literally broke and you might as well consider me to be living out of my car.
5. Email communication between myself and my children needs to be ordered.
6. Telephone communication as well.
In short, the child support payments and Richard expenses add up to such a large amount that I would have to be making income over three times what I am making to be able to afford it. As you know, I bought a house in Louisville and my Dad and I will email you the expense.
Finally, I would like to be able to communicate with my children in Spanish or German but possibly we need not worry the Judge with this?
Thank you,
Allan

February 13, 2007
Allan forwarded to me your suggestion about interim relief, as well as his response. If the trial in Allan's case will not take place until June, some interim relief is indeed needed on two fronts: his supervision and his child support payments. On the question of supervision, please bear in mind that you must give Allan guidance in the things he requests. If asking for unsupervised visits is beyond the scope of an interim hearing, you can propose what will fly in terms of the persons qualified to act as supervisors.

On the question of child support, you will need the numbers. Allan has given me the following figures. According to the ruling of the criminal court, until the Childrens' Court rules otherwise, Allan must pay child support in the amount of $150 a week, which is $664 during a 31-day month. His income at the Episcopal Church is $7.50/hour and he works 37.5 hours a week. (Allan just started this job and will not be paid for three more weeks.) He also receives $750 per month for rent from the tenant occupying his house in Austin, subject to the cost of repairs, which varies from one month to the next. The tenant is behind in the payments by one month. His maximum income, assuming no repairs on his house in Austin, is therefore of $1,810 per month. His unavoidable expenses include monthly mortgage payments on his house in Louisville of $1012 and at least $200 per month for insulin and other diabetic supplies. His disposable monthly income is therefore of $600, out of which he has to pay food, gasoline, public utilities, etc.

Lorena's disposable income may also be relevant under KY law in the calculation of Allan's child support payments.

It seems to me that, until Allan is able to earn more than the minimum wage, his child support payments should be of a very small amount, as he will face the prospect of spending a year in jail if the amount is larger than what he is able to pay.

Sincerely,

William C. Headrick

February 13, 2007: and then to the email that I had responded to from Lorena on the 12th, yesterday, I add:
Dear Lorena,
In the email below you wrote that you would call today and you did not. It is possible that this was a simple mistake and I am Ok with your explaining what happened and what we can do to make things better.
Thank you
Allan

February 13, 2007
Okay--now I remember that we agreed on Sunday, not Tuesday. I still had tuesday in my head as the time to call. That is fine--this week I will call Wednesday, Friday & Sunday.
You did not say anything to me on the phone about missing a Sunday call. Maybe you were thinking that Monday was a make-up call. I was thinking it was an extra call. Anyhow, it will be straigtened out for the future.
Please clarify about the "after 3:30" preference. Do you also mean weekends? I ask because you mention that you would like all visits after 3:30 pm as well.
Where are you working?
Lorena
February 13, 2007
Dear Lorena,
The "after 3:30PM" preference is every day of the week, Monday through Sunday. It does not matter what day it is, for me, it would be nicer if the meeting could take place after 3:30PM. I have not started work yet, I am anticipating starting and I would prefer not to tell anyone of my work place because of past events. I beg that you leave this alone, at least this time. Please. I will keep Richard fully informed.
Thank you,
Allan


February 13, 2007: LL copies me in on this email to Richard.
Hi Richard,
Would it be possible for you to schedule the visits with Allan & the girls weeks ahead of time so that we al can plan for them? Is it possible that you schedule the next 6 weeks worth of visits now?


February 13, 2007: I got the email moments later and sent Richard more positive reinforcement.
Dear Richard,
Would it be possible for you to schedule the visits with Hannah, Sofia and me weeks ahead of time so that we all can plan for them? Is it possible that you schedule the next 6 weeks worth of visits now?
Allan
February 14, 2007
Dear Sofia, Hannah and Mommy,
When I was a little boy, I think I was seven years old, I remember I dropped a big wrench into the sink and the wrench broke the ceramic and it was Valentines Day. My Mommy and Daddy shared their valentines day with me even though I had broken the sink (by accident). That is true love. Sofia and Hannah, I (and I think I can speak for Mommy) will always love you what ever happens for ever and infinitely.
Your Daddy

February 14, 2007: Valentines Day.
LL called at 8:25PM and it lasted until 8:55PM because the call was so late. And the children needed to go to bed. Hannah was not in a mood to talk because it was that late. LL did not tell me anything about the children so I had to improvise from the get go. Hannah and LL were fighting with the result that Hannah said “I'm sorry, Daddy, I am not going to talk.” And LL said “ then you are not going out with Sofia!” Hannah cries and there is much screaming and hollering. After a few minutes LL comes back on the phone and tells me that the children has been baby sat by Vera and were too tired to be able to reasonably speak.” Hannah is apparently moving away because LL calls out to Hannah: “Hey Hannah, look at me! You’re not getting up there -- you are getting in my bed. Hannah cried “No Mommy!”

My Telephone call with Sofia and Hannah February 14, 2007
First Happy Valentines day. Did you get my email? Sofia had not. How did you celebrate Valentines day?


"This is a quiz about various different animals... I'll give you the clues and you guess the animals."



1. I am an Australian marsupial, not usually hopping slowly.
When I have a baby, it's always called joey.

What am I?



2. I am usually seen in historical pictures, sometimes on a farm,
People may be scared of my height, but I usually mean them no harm.
I can be many different colors, maybe brown, black, white, or red
I sometimes stay in a barn, a stable, or a shed.
I can be short, but I can be tall too,
And I whinny or neigh when I call to you!

What am I?



3. I can be many striped colors - orange or white to name a few,
I may be a cat, but I definitely don't say "mew".

What am I?



4. I am a very dull creature,
Really lazy and really slow.
Judging from "Ice Age",
I've been around since long ago.
I am often seen hanging upside down from a tree,
And I have very sharp claws, so don't mess with me!

What am I?



5. I sometimes make squeaks or clicks,
And I swim in the ocean.
I can be blue or grey,
And I'm a mammal in motion.

What am I?



6. There are many cartoons that are based on me,
To name a couple, there's Mickey and Minnie!
I am small and usually white or grey,
And I may live in your house or in a field in the hay.

What am I?



7. I am a close relative of the dog, and I often travel in a pack.
I can be colors of grey, white, or black.

What am I?



8. I am a huge animal, in fact the largest on land,
I can live in a zoo or on the African Savannah's sand.

What am I?



9. I am small, hoppy and really quick,
I usually live in a hole in a forest where the brush is really thick.
I have long ears and a "cotton" tail,
I am very cute and have a keen sense of smell.

What am I?



10. I am the last animal,
But not the least.
My babies are called lambs,
I have a thick coat of fleece.

What am I?




1. Here we start, our first stop is the Chemical Lab, and the scientist there asks us: Which gas is not present in the bulk of space which is the reason that fire cannot be burnt there?


2. Our next stop is the Microscope Lab, the scientist asks us: Which insect has formic acid in it?


3. Our next stop is the Animal Observatory, the scientist asks us: What class of animals does a snail belong to?


4. Our next stop is the Water Pool, and the scientist there asks us which of the birds below can drink salty water?


5. Our next stop is the Bird Observatory, the scientist asks us if the question is true or false: Some birds squeeze oil onto their feathers to help themselves stay dry.


6. While leaving the Bird Observatory, the scientist asks us another true or false question: There is also a bird named the 'Tailor bird'.


7. Our next stop is the Science Bakery, the scientist asks us if we know what is the special thing about eggs which makes them stop rolling from the nest?


8. Our next stop is the Creepy Crawlies' section, and the scientist there asks us: What is the thing in worms which helps them breathe oxygen?


9. While leaving the Creepy Crawlies' section, the scientist asks us: In which country are the world's longest earthworms found?


10. Here comes our last stop, The Eight Legged Creature area. The scientist asks us a true and false question: Spiders belong to an animal group called 'arachnids'.



I believe Sofia loved this telephone conversation.

February 14, 2007
Dear Lorena,
Yes...you had me and the children talk at 8:30PM, one and a half hours (90 minutes) later than agreed upon: Problematic and very difficult with a bellicose child and no intro for me to work with... Now, having stated these issues I want you to understand that I would rather speak with Sofia and Hannah under these conditions then not at all. So, thank you. That was Valentines Day, I hope yours was happy.
Allan
Also, thank you for calling the next day.

February 15, 2007: In the early morning I get this from Helmers:
I am filing Motions on your time with the children - increasing it and granting you Spring Break - and the child support.

I will e-mail to you when filed.

John.

February 15, 2007: I get the following from Helmers.
Dear Allan,
Attached please find the motions that we have submitted to the Court. Please contact our office if you have any questions or concerns.

Thanks,

NO. 06-CI-501203 JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
FAMILY DIVISION THREE (3)
ALLAN ROBERT LASKY-HEADRICK, PETITIONER,
v. MOTION FOR INTERIM RELIEF
LORENA MARIE LASKY (FORMERLY LASKY-HEADRICK), RESPONDENT.
NOTICE
It is hereby noticed that on Monday, February 19, 2007, at 10:00 a.m., in the above
courtroom, the undersigned will make the following Motion and tender the attached Order
MOTION
Petitioner, Allan Robert Lasky-Headrick, by counsel, moves this Court to enter a temporary Order with regard to his supervised visitation. As the Court is aware, the hearing with regard to the visitation scheduled was continued until June 2007. Given the length of this delay, Petitioner, Allan Lasky-Headrick, requests that the Court enter an Order which (1) increases the number of hours of visitation from two (2) to four (4) per week; (2) allows for Court ordered email communication between Petitioner and the Parties’ minor daughters; (3) allows for regular telephone visitation; (4) increases the supervisors, including but not limited to include any licensed clinical social worker in the state of Kentucky, and Petitioner’s parents; and (5) allows Petitioner to vacation with the girls under the supervision of his parents to North Carolina.

And then there is another MOTION
Petitioner, Allan Robert Lasky-Headrick, by counsel, moves this Court to set a brief Child Support hearing. As the Court is aware, this issue was going to be addressed with the more lengthy hearing regarding visitation. As a result of the motion for a continuance, that hearing has been delayed. However, there is no reason to delay the brief hearing on Child Support. Presently, Allan is earning $7.50 per hour and is working 37.5 hours per week. Additionally, he spends two-hundred dollars per month for insulin and diabetic supplies which are not covered by insurance. It is the belief of the undersigned that given his current income level, he is entitled to an immediate reduction in Child Support. It appears to be a guidelines case and the exchange of income information within the next ten (10) days will determine the guidelines amount.
Date: February 15, 2007 Respectfully submitted,
HELMERS DEMUTH & WALTON, PLC
By:____________________________
John H. Helmers, Jr.
429 W. Muhammad Ali Blvd.
200 Republic Building
Louisville, KY 40202
502-581-0077
jhh@hdwlaw.net
Counsel for Petitioner
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
It is hereby certified that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served, via fax, and
via U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, this 15th day of February, 2007, upon:
Mason Trenaman, Esq.
600 W. Main Street
Suite 200
Louisville, Kentucky 40202
Counsel for Respondent
HELMERS DEMUTH & WALTON, PLC
By: ___________________________
John H. Helmers, Jr.

NO. 06-CI-501203 JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
FAMILY DIVISION THREE (3)
ALLAN ROBERT LASKY-HEADRICK, PETITIONER, v. ORDER LORENA MARIE LASKY (FORMERLY LASKY-HEADRICK), RESPONDENT.
Upon Motion of Petitioner, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a hearing on Child Support shall be set for the ____ day
of ______________, 2007 at ____________. The Court allots ____ minutes for the hearing on this matter.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties shall exchange financial information within the next ten (10) days.
Date: _________________, 2007 __________________________________________



February 15, 2007
Dear John,
Thank you for trying. Let me know when I next need to appear in court.

My current employer gets very stressed about absences and tardies so it is best to give her as much warning as possible. (I have told her about a custody battle in court and she will understand.)

I remain grateful to you for your services,
Allan

February 15, 2007
You do not need to come on Monday. I will give you an update on the events on late Monday or Tuesday.
John.

February 15, 2007
I had a good conversation with my children. I walked into a video store and asked them a million questions about children’s movies. But I suspect that Yesterday LL did not know about the motions that Helmers had submitted yesterday.

February 16, 2007
At 7:00PM I called my children at LL's usual phone number even though I had been told that it does not work... and it rang interminably and then at 7:30 I called LL's other numbers and on her cell phone I left a message stating that I would very much like to get to speak with my children... And then at 8:15 she called me when I had just sent her an email which you can read below..... (To send that email I had to call Papo and dictate the message.)

February 16, 2007
Dear Lorena,
While I recognize that life may at times be complex, and that you may have a term to describe your own personal life, which may or may not include the word complex, and there are also physical limitations, superimposed on all psychological and emotional ones (such as, for example, your telephone is broken), I would like for you to please help me forgive you for not having made it possible for me to speak to Sofia and Hannah on this important day, 18 February of 2007. What is needed here, Lorena, now, is immediate, proactive, determined commitment to realizing telephonic and email as well as in-person communication between the children and their father, myself. This been needed since December 15, 2003.
Sincerely,
Allan.

And I had just finished sending this email when she called! But she also responded to this email two days later and here is what it said:
February 17, 2007
Allan,
The 18th of February is tomorrow. If you mean today (Saturday the 17th) we never had a phone call scheduled. The phone calls are for Wed., Friday and Sunday. You talked to them this week do far on Monday (8 minutes), Wed., Thursday and Friday. That is, you are way over schedule in days this week. The next call will be Sunday between 6:30-7:30pm.
Check your blood sugar level. You are wasting my time, Richard's time & attorney's time (thus money) sending emails implying that you were "wronged" when, in fact, the calls this week have exceeeded the minimum required by court order.
Do you disagree that you have spoken to the children 4 days this week--ALL 4 calls initiated & made by me?
Lorena Lasky
And I thought to respond to this email for a while but then I didn’t…:
You may read the email I sent in two days reading.

Anyhow, LL sounded like lacerated stainless steel. Her voice was ice cold and she was perfunctory like a machine. She did not want to tell me anything about the children before putting me with them: She said "There has been no change since yesterday."
“What is that supposed to mean?” I wondered.
"What did our children do today?" I asked.
"They went to school “ she said and then she put me on the phone with Hannah. Oh what a great conversation I had with Hannah! We talked about a myriad different topics with a fluidity and a wonder that was awesome. “What animals do you like?” I asked her and she listed as many animals as she could think of... the list went on and on. At one point she told me that she liked llamas. I asked her if she had ever seen a llama and she said that Mom had. She added that the llama had spat at Mommy. I asked Hannah, “when did that happen?” She did not know so she went to her mother to inquire and was told that she did not want to speak about the incident. Hum?? I told Hannah that Mommy and I had seen Llamas in Macchu Picchu but that the llamas had certainly not spat! And then I had a very fluid conversation with Sofia. Sofia pulled out some magic cards and read my fortune based on asking me for a secret number (which I had to tell her since she is the one who had the cards and had, for all effective purposes regarding this fortune telling, power of attorney) and then she told me what other numbers are lucky for me.

All in all the sad thing about my conversations with my children is the enmity that looms all around them from which they have to speak.
My telephone conversation was cut off with Sofia saying "I’ll see you Sunday." She sounded stressed out as she said this.

But I have not been informed of this. How did she know? I found out an hour later…

February 16, 2007
I made a child support payment.

February 16, 2007: very late at night Richard sent this.
Lorena; did you and Allan agree upon a meeting location for Sunday at 1:00p as we discussed 2/14? I need to know by 1:00p tomorrow or I will cancel the appointment. Thanks, Richard

I did not get this until after my phone call with my children was ended, and I responded by writing to Lorena and Richard two separate emails. (I copied Lorena’s email in to Richard’s account so that he could read what I sent her.)

Dear Lorena,
I would like the meeting place to be Dog Hill (we have been there before, one time, do you remember?) --- for sledding and other snow related experiences. We will sled until we are tired and then we will go to Heinebrothers at the intersection of Eastern and Bardstown road for Hot Chocolate and goodies. We will drive in my car from Cherokee park to the goodies. So, this time the drop off point and the pick up points will not be the same. Please be so kind as to pick the children up at Heinbrothers.
Thank you very much,
Allan

and

Dear Richard,
This evening, Friday at about 8:15PM, in conversation with my daughter Sofia, I heard that we would see one another on Sunday. That, was the first I ever heard of my children and I meeting. Lorena did not speak with me on the phone about this issue after Sofia and I spoke. She has to date, not spoken with me about a meeting location for Sunday at 1:00p "as you and she discussed 2/14. " As you know, she has also not emailed me about this matter either.

I have been left completely in the blue about this week end until it was almost the week end.

So, here is a the meeting place: Dog Hill --- for sledding and other snow related experiences. We will sled until we are tired and then we will go to Heinebrothers at the intersection of Eastern and Bardstown road for Hot Chocolate and goodies. We will drive in my car from Cherokee park to the goodies. Richard, please confirm that you are good with this. I would appreciate your response before 1:00 PM tomorrow, Saturday.
Thank you very much,
Allan
11:15AM I sent an email to LL and to Richard.
Dear Richard and Lorena,
It is now 11:15AM on Saturday and the dead-line for the appointment is in forty five minutes. Richard, can you please extend the dead line? Lorena, can you please respond to this? I will call both of you pending your having called me first in fifteen minutes.
Thank you very much,
Allan
11:30AM I called Richard Nassr and left a message: What incentive does LL have to reach an agreement with me? If she does not do so within the next thirty minutes, then according to Richard the appointment gets cancelled? I asked Richard to please call me.
11:34AM I called LL and left a message asking her to please call me. She was on another line… Maybe she was talking with Richard? It is snowing outside and very pretty.
11:45AM still no news from anyone. I have just checked my emails.

12:45PM Richard called. He sounded very upset. He was at his ends. He no longer had a grip on reality. I listened to him and allowed him to come to his own conclusions. He sounded out his thoughts like a blabbering idiot. Finally he concluded that the best that he can do is to document. At first he said that he wanted to cancel the appointment and then at the end he had changed his mind and indeed his last words were I’ll see you tomorrow.
Richard had attempted to get LL to communicate with me about a meeting place and it had failed and he concluded that this is not something for which the children should be deprived of meeting me. I told Richard that Helmers had filed two motions and that LL had probably learned of this yesterday. I told him that LL had sounded “icy cold” last night. I told her that I believe she is “angry.” Richard concluded that she was angry because her ploy to keep the custody battle from taking place had been threatened. There is another dimension to this which nobody recognizes. Yes, LL does not want me to interact with my children and does so only with great reluctance. I believe she does this because the children put a phenomenal amount of pressure on her to allow us to interact. For example, the last two calls have started out with LL stating that she is calling because the children have clamored for it. But the real irk for LL is the financial pressure that she is under. If I am really lucky, she will have no power to fight the motions or the final custody battle in June. Oh, Richard is pretending to not understand why LL does not communicate with me – although he does recognize absolutely that she does not do so, and that I am the one who always initiates communication. LL gets other people to do her work for her, she herself does not do anything which is why she seems to some of the worthless idiots involved in this case (Kim Dial, Ginger Crumbo, LeeAnn Gardner and Craig Hansen) to be somewhat angelic! Imagine that – she is a terrible person with an angelic aura. Anyway, the thrust of Richard’s position was that he had provided LL with an opportunity to “negotiate” the meeting places and times with me, that Richard did not want to be a mediator, and that LL had failed. When I told Richard that the reason the custody hearing had been postponed he said “Bullshit!”

Now, Richard deserves to suffer because he has been such a shoddy professional (kowtowing to people with whom he disagrees like the KGB) and stupid person (displaying no sense of how to write a letter to a judge, but I never want it to be at the cost of my children.

So, yes, I certainly got the impression that Richard is sick and tired of this case. He pointed out that LL had stated to him already a year ago that LL has no problem with me interacting with the children, only she wants it to be supervised. What a nut he is. Can he not see that LL wants other people to do her work for her? I re-iterated to Richard that I
Am in a chronic state of shock! Richard said he would call Helmers Monday morning.

I mentioned that my friend Peter could supervise for free. I told Richard that Peter is an elementary school teacher and Richard reacted very favorably to this. He wanted to interview Peter. I told Richard that Peter knew the whole story. Richard was glad! He also wants my parents to be in on the picture.

Basically, Richard took the following stand regarding tomorrow: We will meet even if LL does not respond. (She responded at 4:08PM)


And when there is the parent like LL parent, recently divorced and deeply wishful to have nothing to do with you except get your money, who will listen to pseudo professional con people, who needs the Establish-ment? So these mavericks, like Kim Dial and Ginger Crumbo continue to circulate, paddling in the same scientific shallows, attending the same conferences and boasting connections with the same research institutes. They travel the world quoting each other in circular support, reinforcing a fringe belief in unproven interventions for abuse and projecting: propagating the mistaken view that ordinary doctors are cowed by mysterious vested interests into not doing their best for children with abuse... This is twisted for two reasons. The first is that I have never abused my children and the second is that they are the ones who are cowed. I quote Craig Hansen, after speaking with these awful therapists stating that "The work of Dr. Hawkins is irrelevant."
Their harmful agenda is, regrettably, assisted by newspapers with acres of space to fill, which delight in feeding the middle-class paranoia over perfect parenting. For these organs, cute Ph. d. carrying Ginger Crumbo is a newsroom blessing on a slow Sunday. Or, in the case of our meeting of professionals including telephone conferencing with Texas, which produced a docudrama followed by a lame debate between Richard Nassr (who had behaved without direction and myself, a surefire ratings winner. Unfortunately for Seven Counties and their disciples like Craig Hansen, hundred of studies published in Richard's methods have failed to confirm a parent and abuse link.
There is nothing wrong with a scientist pursuing a hunch, and everything right about parents wanting to do the best for their child. There is nothing even particularly sinister about Kim Dial and Ginger Crumbo gambling their reputation on an instinct. But there is something depressing beyond belief about a scientist who refuses to recant in the face of overwhelming opposing evidence.
Seven counties claims to hold the interests of abused children above all, and has been lauded simply for listening. But showing compassion and respect to those affected by abuse is also about being brave enough to admit you were wrong, and not using the distance to Texas etc.. of vulnerable parents to push your own agenda.

Well, it’s 3:30PM and there is no notice from anyone of anything.
Then, at 3:55PM I get this:
Allan; as you might recall, a taxi will not come to Cherokee Park and our
contract stipulates no transport by you during visitation. I have not heard
from Lorena despite an email and phone message. I will have to assume that
she recieves this message and I will see you tomorrow at 1:00p at Mid City
Mall. If you and your children choose to go elsewhere by car, a taxi will
have to return us to Mid City mall. Thanks, Richard

And I respond
Dear Richard,
Yes. and Thank you. (I have no choice is also in my heart.)
Allan
Hum? Ok, so it seems like Richard is trying to put a little pressure on LL? Poor guy, he really got himself in a crunch by writing that email regarding cancelling the appointment and then realizing that the ones who suffer are Sofia and Hannah. Now, LL can lie about communication with me and she can say that the appointment needs to be cancelled by Richards own words. Yes, Richard is an idiot.


February 17, 2007
Allan,
Driving in your car is not acceptable for the visits, as you know from signing the contract with Richard. Other than the driving, I have no objection to the locations you mentioned. In view of the driving not being okay, where do you want me to drop off the children?

Dear Lorena, I will ask Richard to relax this requirement. I will seek a response to this from you tomorrow.
Allan

February 17, 2007
Richard & Allan,
If you see my previous email, I also mentioned the driving concern. I have been working at the Youth Opportunities Showcase all day (which was the reason the visit was on Sunday, not Saturday). I received both messages. Allan's message asked me to read the email before I called anyone back. Mid-City Mall is fine. I will bring the children there at 1:00pm on the side facing Bardstown road.
Thanks,
Lorena
February 17, 2007
Allan,
The 18th of February is tomorrow. If you mean today (Saturday the 17th) we never had a phone call scheduled. The phone calls are for Wed., Friday and Sunday. You talked to them this week do far on Monday (8 minutes), Wed., Thursday and Friday. That is, you are way over schedule in days this week. The next call will be Sunday between 6:30-7:30pm.
Check your blood sugar level. You are wasting my time, Richard's time & attorney's time (thus money) sending emails implying that you were "wronged" when, in fact, the calls this week have exceeeded the minimum required by court order.
Do you disagree that you have spoken to the children 4 days this week--ALL 4 calls initiated & made by me?
Lorena Lasky

Dear Lorena,
Oh dear, no, that was a typo: It is not supposed to say 18, but 16 (sixteen.). It is clearly a typo because the sentence strongly implies that I am talking about that very same day. If you look at the date when the email was sent you will see that it was the 16th of February and not the 18th. And you state in your email, the telephone calling dates are: ”Wed., Friday and Sunday. “ So then the 16th was a Friday, a regular calling date. As it turns out, you did call me on that day, but very late. I had already sent this email when you called. It was past the children’s bed time. You called me at 8:15PM, and you will recall that it was a short call because of the lateness. You may also recall the screaming and shouting that you blamed on a tired Hannah with whom I did not speak.
Lorena, your last sentence and question does not make sense. The answer is quite simply “no,’ and for many reasons not least that I have been calling you and leaving messages, reminding you to set up a call between the children and me, which means that you have not initiated them. I know that on one occasion I also emailed you to remind you to call me. Moreover, at times the calls do not last but a few minutes (because the children are supposed to eat fast food in the car or because it is so late. At times I can not speak with both children…. And so again while I recognize that life may at times be complex, and that you may have a term to describe your own personal life, which may or may not include the word complex, and there are also physical limitations, superimposed on all psychological and emotional ones (such as, for example, your telephone is broken, which is the reason why YOU must initiate the calls), I would like for you to please help me forgive you for using people to distance the children and me from each other without cause. Wrong, very wrong, much more wrong than anything that has been discussed is what has been done with Sofia and Hannah since December 15, 2003. I am certain and will chronically attempt to improve the lives of Sofia and Hannah who are still young and deeply hurt by being used as pawns in a game you have played for your own selfish purposes. Thus, your statement that I waste people’s time and money is completely out of line. According to our daughters, you and your mother hurt the children with your lies about me. You are projecting when you write about wasting people’s time and money. I am not wasting your time but working to help Sofia and Hannah, I am not wasting attorney’s times, but making my case clear, and every day that you have the children and do not share them with me, is a day when the children are “wronged.”
Sincerely,
Allan

Ok, here is what I did send:
Dear Lorena,
Let me write four things and then later I will expand on them:

1. Ok, I made a typo. It was supposed to be '16,' not '18. ' This is implicit in the email. Moreover, the date the email was sent was the 16th. You called me at 20:15, very late, and after I'd sent you my email.

2. "Check your blood sugar level" is nothing short of insulting.

3. Yes, you have used the children as pawns in a ploy to get rid of me. That is wrong, and it is even worse than anything that has ever been discussed.

4. I disagree that the children have either individually or in pairs spoken with me 4 days this week-- and I disagree that you have "initiated & made the calls" because the statement makes no sense since your phone is broken and I have been reminding you to make the calls, even if some part of it might be something like true.

May I please invite you for a cut of tea someplace -- so that we may speak?
Sincerely,
Allan

And then one more email for the evening asking LL about meeting for counseling with LeeAnn. (The following email is paraphrased.)

Dear Lorena,
When do you intend to make true what you said about Mason and your conversations about us meeting with LeeAnn? I always look forward to meeting you and hope very much that we can somehow find a way to make things better for our children.
Sincerely,
Allan

Now, check out the last minuteness of all this! It was not until after sun down that I got LL’s email confirming the parenting interval for tomorrow. But let’s say LL had sent it at 4PM (I checked my emails at 4:00PM) when the sun is still in a snow cresting sky, then we are dealing with 21 hours notice. Richard, LL broke your record. You had managed to keep it from me until 20 hours before the event. It is very different to get a call (Richard) then it is to get an email (LL), so effectively LL wins to prize for atrocious communication!

February 18, 2007
Today I am scheduled to see my children. That is great.

February 18, 2007
Breath in, breath out, breath easy. Remember that Richard is a spineless idiot. When he speaks with me he tends to say the kinds of things that I want to hear, when he speaks with LL, he tends to say the kinds of things LL wants to hear. When he speaks with Kim and Ginger he tends to say the kinds of things they want to hear. He is a worthless animal - the last dodo bird.
In one hour I am to see my children again. Richard will be there, but he wants to not be there next week end. Hum? He is trying to accomplish two things (1) to share the shit with someone else (2) to not be alone in his position on the stand. I must tell him that I understand these two reasons and that I do not approve of the first because it is Richard who caused this. He is directly responsible for the last letter he wrote the Judge where he prescribed a reason for continued supervision. That is to say, Richard deserves to have to supervise. It is his fault.
They were late in arriving: 8 minutes late. That gave Richard and me a chance to speak. I actually arrived 7 minutes before the children were to arrive. I told Richard I was angry because “he undermines my authority to determine where I will spend time with the children, because he panders to the listener when he speaks, because he sets LL up with communication ideals knowing full well that she has never lived up to that and because he has undermined my right to take my children in the car.

Richard told me that he has asked Dennis Hefton to share in the supervising because he can not handle it on his own. Dennis has agreed. Dennis even agreed to 3:30PM on Sunday. Richard called him right in my presence and got that settled. I was not in a mood to be compromised. Richard does not believe that there is not an opening at the court until June, he seemed appalled that the hearing had been postponed that long. He seemed to not understand it. He thought it was a legal trick. I bet he’s right.

I told Richard more about the motion to have certain changes made. I promised him that I would email him the motions and the email from Helmers stating that he would have a response to the motions by Monday or Tuesday.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The time with Sofia and Hannah.
As usual LL was late. Does she care? She has never had to care, so why should she care today? Richard and I were in the middle of heavy discourse – I was not being easy – as we approached the car and Richard had to quickly finish his sentence. I opened the door and kissed both my children. First Hannah who had fallen and dirtied her pants, and LL was telling me that I needed to clean her pants and I was like “yes, yes, yes,” while kissing Hannah and telling her that she was my girl who had fallen and dirtied her pants and a wink, and then I kissed Sofia and told her that she was my daughter who had not fallen and not dirtied her pants. I asked LL if the children had eaten. “I made some scrambled eggs which they did not like,” she said. And then the children somehow made it out of the car and we wandered into the Midcity Mall. Just as we were entering I asked Richard what the result of telling LL to let up on the car issue and he told me that he had forgotten. I asked him to call LL. I did not grant him the ease that he so yearned. He did and he got LL’s OK. So it’s a go! I can drive my children places again. That I was not able to, for a while, was Richard’s fault. Ok, so my children are playing with the floor. They are trying to step only on the dark pink tiles as we walk towards my car. Stepping on the light pick tiles was not permitted – though Richard did not play along. Hannah had a stomach ache because she had not eaten. I asked my children, where they would rather eat – at the supermarket or at the café and they opted for the café because it had a computer option – they could either play games on the computer or they could look at videos of themselves or they could watch a DVD. But then, when we got to the café, Hannah said that she did not like the food so I decided that we would go to the Asian Buffet. We went to my car and pulled out my computer and the presents that I had bought the children for the last week end when I had not seen them because Richard had done such a shitty job of getting LL in line. And so I oput these with my lap top in my back pack. Hannah complained about her belly. I offered to carry her. She loved that. I carried her in my arms until she wanted to get back down and then we were back in the mid city mall where there are the light and dark pink tiles…
We made it to the Asian Buffet (in the same building) and that proved to be a great success for Sofia. Sofia loved the concept of choosing and selecting the foods that she wanted. But Hannah did not know quite how to handle the ample selection and ended up with only pears. Then she saw that Richard was eating spaghetti and indeed she wanted that, so I went with her to get some and that was fun and good. The children did not eat much, but a least they ate something and their moods were very elevated. They sat in my lap and watched videos of themselves on my computer and laughed at pictures of Richard. In fact, Richard was the source of much amusement since he was eating for the first time in a year! The children picked up on this and became giddy. Sofia has a great sense of humor. She remembers one time when Richard and Hannah were to marry and this caused her to laugh repeatedly. Hannah did not care about this. But then, when we left and re-realized the trek on the light pink tiles, Hannah was in great mood. She wanted to go to a park. Sofia wanted to go to a dollar store. I said “Ok, let’s do both.” So we got in the car and drove to Tyler park so that Hannah could fly the paper airplane she had made herself with the airplane book, and then we went to the dollar store where Sofia bought pipe cleaners and Hannah bought ear rings. (Oh, Hannah loves her new ear ring. It is a gold stud and one of the first things she pointed out to me when I first saw her.)


Pics and videos February 18, 2007\Videos feb 18, 2007\LL, Richard babble.AVI

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

LL: There is a motion, that says that any social worker who qualifies…
Richard: Does it have to be a social worker?
LL: I don’t know, that’s the way they wrote it in their motion, that a qualified social worker would be able to do it and uhm.
Richard: I would honestly be satisfied if it was someone who merely had the ability to follow court orders. Allan has proposed a licensed teacher who would do it for free…
LL: Why would anybody do it for free?
Richard: Laughs. I don’t know, but it would take me and my aid out of it. But it would take the financial burden out of it and quite honestly any reasonable adult would not allow any of those risk factors to occur. Hopefully my screening would weed out any horror stories, there is no guarantee what ever we do.
LL: Right. That’s something to keep in mind Allan because I think there is an agreement that is going to come out probably next week that is going to be extending to four hours but we’d have to find some on who could do that. Richard can you do four hours?
Richard: No.
LL: What about three?
Richard: Babbles..
LL: Well, he will hear if from the attorney. I am going to agree to the four hours if he agrees to Saturday 4 hours and Sunday 4 hours which is eight hours total but only every second week.
Allan: Basically what she is doing is she is not increasing the hours?
LL and Richard together: No, you are getting all the hours you’re asking for in the motion.
Allan: I still think it is better for my children to see me every week.
LL: and that way, if I want to go camping…
Richard: Yes, but Dennis is committed to every Sunday at 3:30PM.
LL: Well, ….
LL: They’ve got a motion for the court next week.
Richard: So why can’t we agree to any professional that I screen?
LL agrees.
Allan: I look forward to some intelligence.
Richard and LL laugh.

(This conversation with LL is recorded! Go to February 18, 2007\Videos feb 18, 2007\LL, Richard babble.AVI)

Called Richard and told him that I was both sorry and grateful. I was sorry that I had spoken out because it makes other people retract into a defensive posture. I was grateful that he had managed to get LL to consent to having any adult present subject to Richard’s approval for supervision. Richard assured me that I need not apologize.
I wondered if LL would call LeeAnn. She had emailed me a while back and today she had said that she had called her once and that LeeAnn had called her back. Will LL call again? Let me write a bit about LeeAnn.

LeeAnn got together with Craig Hansen and they both decided that LeeAnn would restrict her job to playing the game that Nancy, LL, Kim and Ginger are playing but to hide it behind a limited job description. So, LeeAnn had no power, was unable to do anything. She just listened and sometimes made suggestions that LL did not obey and it did not matter because LeeAnn was concerned with LL’s and my natures and not with the children. So when LeeAnn suggested that I be able to speak with the children to LL and LL agreed, it did not mean anything if LL did not let that happen.
LeeAnn was always a waste of money because she could do nothing. But the reality of LeeAnn is that she blames me and LL for the lack of progress. She claims that we can not be worked with. She claims that any orders from the Judge need to be written in stone. She does not acknowledge that this is her fault. The reason LL and I appear to be so opposed to agreeing is because LeeAnn is intent on having nothing to do with Sofia and Hannah. If LeeAnn would get to the crux of the matter, then LL and I would have to work with that. But she doesn’t. LeeAnn’s job is to keep the lid on the shit that the KGB (LL and Nancy too) have created.

February 18, 2007



25 minute call on Friday.
My phone is working now. You may again resume making the calls. The next call due is tonight at 6:30 pm. If I don't hear from you by 7pm, I will call assuming you did not get this email.
Hannah is sick & in bed, by the way, so unless she waqkes up and feels better, she will not talk tonight.

I did not get this email until 8:12PM and she never called.
Dear Lorena,
What do the words “. If I don't hear from you by 7pm, I will call assuming you did not get this email,” actually mean to you? Why did your write them? This sentence is quite simply false.
Sincerely,
Allan
And then, five minutes later, Sofia called! And she now knows my number because LL told her. I asked her Math questions and some questions from below.
1. If you could ask someone any question and they couldn't lie to you, who and what would you ask?
2. If someone asks you to steal, would you?
3. What would you do if your coach told you to trip someone from the opposing team so your team could win, would you do it?
4. Who is more important to you, your family or your friends?

“You can’t come to Mommy’s house,” Sofia told me at one point when we were talking about her own make believe school in the basement of LL’s place. I had asked her about parent-teacher conferences. I responded that “Mommy can always come to my house.” ’
But all in all, my conversation with Sofia was a wonderful conversation.

So, then, after the call, I sent LL another email:
Dear Lorena,
Hannah was a little different when she was with me from 1:07PM to 3:00PM. She had a stomach ache and wanted me to carry her (which I did a little) and she ate just a little bit of spaghetti. Then she was happy to just sit in my lap and watch videos of herself and Sofia on my computer. She may have been sick when she was with me but it was not obvious.

I stand slightly corrected -- I talked with Sofia tonight because she called at 8:15PM. That is one and a quarter hours after you stipulated in your email below. Sofia called after I had sent you an email stating that you had lied about the phone call, and five minutes or so later, it turned out that you had not quite lied about the call.

You had told Sofia to tell me that she was calling late because Hannah was sick. That is not ok. Please do not use Sofia to excuse your calling late. Instead, get on the phone yourself and tell me what you want to tell me. Do what LeeAnn Gardner asked you to do.

Sofia told me "You can never come to Mommy's house." Telling that to Sofia is unacceptable.
(I told Sofia that you, "Mommy, will always be welcome in my house.")

I am glad your phone is working. I will call tomorrow at 7:00PM.

Sincerely,
Allan

And Helmers
Dear John,
I want unsupervised visits. Richard will call you tomorrow. He got Lorena to agree to any adult supervising pending Richard's approval. He is prepared to go to court.
Allan

And that’s enough for February 18, 2007

February 19, 2007
I called the Bloom elementary school to see if it would be possible for me to conference with Sofia and Hannah’s teachers. I left my phone number and email address and I was told by the secretary that I would receive a response today – but I did not. I wonder if LL has something to do with this?

February 19, 2007
I called my children at the usual time (7:00PM). LL was very uninformative and it took a great amount of work to get her to tell me anything. She picked up the phone and when I asked for a quick summary of the children’s day so that I could have a lead into a conversation with them, she handed the phone to Sofia. I asked Sofia to give the phone back to “Mommy” so that I could ask her a question. Sofia did so, and then I asked again for a clue about the children’s day. Again, it was like pulling teeth. She said things like “oh nothing,” or “they played” and then she said that “Hannah was sick and that Hannah had vomited.” I asked her what and where the children had played and she told me that they had played in the house and handed the phone to Sofia.

Sofia and I spoke for an hour and seventeen minutes. She read me a science book and asked me questions from the book. “Which is the most intelligent animal in the ocean?” Sofia asked and I guessed that it was dolphins. “What is the name of the insect that feeds on human skin?” I did not know. “Dust mites….” She responded and read the section in the book about dust mites eating dead skin that flakes off your body. I also learned that Orca whales are actually dolphins.
I asked Sofia the following questions:
5. Your best friend got into an argument with another one of your good friends. She tells you not to hangout with your other friend anymore. What would you do? “Then I am not friends with her any more,” said Sofia
6. Would you rather be a grown up or a child?” Child,” Sofia responded.
7. Who do you think has it easier in life, boys or girls?” I don’t know.” She was emphatic and I agreed with her.

I was speaking to my children from Peter’s house and he told me that he experiences an ineffable, indescribable warm fuzzy feeling when he hears me speaking with my children.
LL is a hater and there is no one out there to curb it. It is awful how she has hated/hates on me to Sofia and Hannah. Curses.

I was sad to see that there was no email from Helmers.

And the next day at 4:00PM there was still nothing from Helmers. So, I sent him a short reminder:
February 20, 2007
Dear John,
And if you would please let me know what Richard Nassr said to you.
Thank you,
Allan

February 20, 2007
Dear Lorena,
How is it going with the meeting with LeeAnn. If I set it up, will you go?
Allan

I am very sad that Helmers did not respond to me today. He had sent an email to me last week and stated “I will give you an update on the events on late Monday or Tuesday.“ and this is now a lie. Should I be surprised? Guess not, remember how John Izzo (the first lawyer in Texas) tried to destroy my chances by calling the intake investigator when the allegations were first presented. (See John John Whitfields deposition.) Lawyers play, lie, cheat, swindle and tease the case for their own. So, what is Helmers doing now? Lorena, in her interview with Richard Nassr said something about negotiating. That implies that the Judge would not become involved. If Helmers is negotiating with LL’s lawyer, Trenaman, then I am not pleased. And I have not heard anything from Richard?

I imagine speaking with the KGB and telling them that there are two reasons why they are evil. The first is that I am innocent. The second is because of their atrocious professionalism. Both these reasons merit their incarceration and revoking their licenses to practice.

I called Craig Hansen. He told me he was in the middle of something and I offered to call him another time when he would not be busy. But then he told me that there was no reason to call him. I told him that there were reasons to call him. He inquired what these were and I told him “for edification and education.” He re-iterated that he had “threatened to call the DA’s office” and he did not know why he had not yet done so. I told him “I think it is because you know that what you did was wrong,” and he hung up on me.

I called LeeAnn and left a message on her answering machine expressing the wish to meet her and LL ASAP.

February 21, 2007: I met Hannah’s biological father on line.
Scottie: yes but i had that one already
Allan: Oh cool there you are. Ok, I will send you another. Hold on. I have to learn how to do it with Yahoo messenger.
Scottie: so how have you been
Scottie: i see a cup
Scottie:
Allan: Ok, here she is in the snow.
Scottie: i see i got it
Allan: And then she gets in the car....
Scottie: wow she looks older now
Allan: Here she is back in the snow. Yes, she is a big girl, very tough, strong, unafraid, she is a bit of a tomboy
Scottie: good
Allan: So tell me something about your life
Scottie: oh nothing new just down at ft bragg now i had my gall bladder removed last week so i am resting from it
Allan: Are you going back to Iraq? Have you interacted with Sarah? Did you hear that she got married? Do you think Sarah is afraid to communicate with me?
Allan: this is Sofia
Allan: This is Hannah again
Scottie: i dont see any
Allan: Ok, well, I keep trying, here is Sofia and Hannah's head in the front.
Scottie: the pics are not up on my end
Allan: Is anything coming up?
Scottie: not now
Allan: Do you see Hannah?
Scottie: just those 3 pics
Scottie: got that one
Enviaste 1 foto a scottie kelly.
PICT0308.JPG

Allan: Ok, I do not know what I am sending because somehow this computer does not let me look at the picture before I send it. Some of the pictures are of Sofia and one includes my x-wife.
Scottie: ok
Scottie: all you have to do is right click on the item and hit preview
Allan: Are you going back to Iraq? Have you interacted with Sarah? Did you hear that she got married? Do you think Sarah is afraid to communicate with me?
Allan: Oh, thank you for that computer tip. I will try it.
Scottie: i am not going back anytime so and i have only talked to her once or twice since i been home so i am not sure whats in her head
Allan: About 8 months ago I was in Durham and offered to meet her.... but she did not respond.
Scottie: yea she is a hard one to catch
Allan: When are we going to meet?
Scottie: i dont know how to contact her no more
Scottie: its up to you i am home now back in the states
Allan: does she now have a different telephone number? Does she have a different email address? And as far as meeting you are concerned, I would like to do that. I am a little busy with work but there has to be a way to do this.
Allan: How far is Ft. Bragg from Louisville?
Scottie: all i have now is the e-mail i gave you for her and i am cool about meeting you
Scottie: 7 hours
Scottie: did you try and send the other pics
Allan: I am trying...
Scottie: oh ok
Enviaste 1 foto a scottie kelly.
PICT0333.JPG

Enviaste 1 foto a scottie kelly.
PICT0334.JPG

Scottie: wow she is so pretty
Enviaste 1 foto a scottie kelly.
PICT0318.JPG

Allan: Yeah, she is a wonderful child.
Allan: She is very strong too. Lots of balance and she is fearless. So, for example, she is totallu unafraid to sled down a hill at TOP speed.
Allan: Her sister, is different. Sofia prefers to read and stay at home. Hannah is very much into the great out doors.
Scottie: yea i think thats me
Enviaste 1 foto a scottie kelly.
PICT0323.JPG

Enviaste 1 foto a scottie kelly.
PICT0324.JPG

Allan lasky: Oh great! Me too! I like it outside more.
Enviaste 1 foto a scottie kelly.
PICT0327.JPG

Scottie: so you have two different girls
Allan: Hey, do you have any fotos of yourself and or your children you can send me to show Hannah?
Allan:: Yes, I have a biological daughter called Sofia and an adopted daughter who you helped create.
Allan: At least that is what Sarah said.
Recibiste 1 archivo de scottie kelly.
130564689_Donna_4937_4_72.jpg
Abrir (Alt+Mayús+O)

Allan: Oh great! That is a wonderful picture. Can you tell me who the people are and how you are related to them?
Recibiste 1 archivo de scottie kelly.
slk2.JPG
Abrir (Alt+Mayús+O)

Recibiste 1 archivo de scottie kelly.
slk5.JPG
Abrir (Alt+Mayús+O)

Scottie: ok the two girls on the left that are sitting side by side are my two girls
Allan lasky: ok, keep going...
Scottie: the two lil boys on the floor the lil light skin one and the one beside him are mine
Recibiste 1 archivo de scottie kelly.
nanaparty.jpg
Abrir (Alt+Mayús+O)

Scottie: the lady with the pink on is my mom
Recibiste 1 archivo de scottie kelly.
slk4.JPG
Abrir (Alt+Mayús+O)

Allan: Oh good. I will tell Hannah of her other grand mother and siblings...
Recibiste 1 archivo de scottie kelly.
reading_004[1].JPG
Abrir (Alt+Mayús+O)

Scottie: the others are brothers sister neices and other family members
Recibiste 1 archivo de scottie kelly.
slk1.JPG
Abrir (Alt+Mayús+O)

Allan: Ok, who are your brothers and sisters?
Allan: Who are Hannah other Uncles and Aunts?
Scottie: the ones that are in front of me i think its 3 guys those are my brothers
Scottie: and there is one more
Allan: What are the names of your brothers and sisters?
Scottie: ok here are my brothers and sisters
Scottie: Mary, Darryl, Donna, Keith, Kevin, Bobby, Robert ,Lisa
Recibiste 1 archivo de scottie kelly.
130564795_Donna_4940_7_72.jpg
Abrir (Alt+Mayús+O)

Allan: I will take these pictures to Hannah, or I will show her the pictures on my lap top and I will tell her as much as I can about the family from which she comes biologically, so it would be great if you could tell me as much as you can over the course of time.
Scottie: sure i will as time gos on
Scottie: so does she know about me
Allan: Oh yes, I have always told her about you and Sarah. I have shown her the pictures you have sent me over the internet and I have told her that you are a soldier in Iraq.
Scottie: wow what did she have to say
Allan: I have also told her that you really want to see her and that you feel an emptyness not having any way to interact with her.
Allan:: She is VERY interested in you.
Allan: She is also VERY interested in Sarah.
Scottie: wow thats cool
Allan: I do not have any pictures of Sarah so she is less interested in Sarah, which is a shame. Do you have a picture of Sarah?
Scottie: i wish i had some pics of her but i dont
Allan: Ok, if you can get one that would make a REAL BIG difference.
Scottie: if she contacts me agin i will try and get some
Allan: Now that I have pictues of your family, I will have a lot more to show her.
Scottie: thats great
Allan: How long will you stay in fort Bragg?
Scottie: at least till sept
Allan: Will you then maybe go back to Iraq?
Scottie: no i will either stay there of go to indianna
Allan: I now live in Louisville and will stay here for a good while. I have a job working in an old peoples home.
Allan: What is your telephone number? Maybe I can call you next time I am with Hannah?
Scottie: ok well one weekend when i have some time i will come up that way
Scottie: 7047851196
Allan: Thank you, I am going to call you (I hope I remember) this week end so that you can talk with Hannah.
Scottie: ok thank you
Allan: My tel number is 502 457 0062. You can call me anytime you want but I like it when people call after 7PM.
Scottie: ok i will do.
Allan: That way it doesn't use up my minutes.
Allan: I might call you tonight.
Scottie: ok that works for me
Allan: Ok, let's continue communicating this evening when I call you... I truly can not wait to see you and I can only imagine that for a small child like Hannah it can only be fascinating?
Scottie: i feel the same here
Allan: Cool, I'll catch ya later, bye brother, take care, life is alright if it isn't utterly beautiful.
Scottie: well thanks again and i will chat with you later
Scottie: yes it is

February 21, 2007

(Note: My last interaction with Sonja was April 11, 2006)

Liebe Sonja,
Was ist los mit dir? I am now in Louisville Kentucky again trying to spend some time with my children. I had a wonderful time in Paraguay. Are you still studying for a Ph.D.? Allan

Hi Allan! Yeah I'm still doing my PhD here in Holland. I'm going to Bolivia in June. Are you going back to Paraguay? Do you have any news of Mike by the way? Hugs, Sonja

Dear Sonja, No, I have not interacted with Mike since I last saw him in Paraguay. But I do know that he has been to Asuncion since I was told by several people at the Britannia Pub that he had been there. He was also seen with the wife of the owner of that Pub -- the German fellow, I do not remember his name.

And I hope very much to return to Paraguay since I love that part of the world, but if you are going to Bolivia, then maybe we could meet? June? How long are you staying in Bolivia, and where will you be? Cochabamba? Santa Cruz? La Paz? Sucre? Potossi? All places in Bolivia are beautiful. Is it part of your Ph.D. research? I can not remember what you are studying -- psycho-linguistics?

The last time we chatted you had just fallen in love. How’s that? Bitte schreib mir auf Deutsch.
Bundles of smooshfrogs,
Allan

Hi Allan! Ja das waere voll cool dich zu treffen in Bolivien, bin da meistens im Dschungel (TIPNIS Nationalpark), aber sonst in Cochabamba und ab und zu in Trinidad ( Trinidad ist leider einer der weniger schoenen Teile Boliviens, finde ich...) Ich bleibe drei Monate dort, Juni bis Anfang September. Ja, das ist fuer meine Doktorarbeit, wir fahren in den Busch zu den Yurakare und erforschen deren Sprache. Das sind echt super liebe und schoene Menschen, wenn ich dort bin bin ich immer voll entspannt und happy. Ist aber auch echt anstrengend, das Klima und so... Wann gehst du denn wieder nach Suedamerika? Ich wuerde auch noch mal gerne nach Paraguay, aber dieses Jahr gehe ich nach der Arbeit dort 10 Tage nach Buenos Aires und Montevideo, da kenne ich auch noch Leute, die ich besuchen moechte.

Interessant mit Mike, ich muss unbedingt mal versuchen, den zu erreichen, hab auch ewig nicht mit ihm gesprochen. Zu dem anderen Thema, ja, ich bin noch verliebt, aber er wohnt halt in Berlin, das ist nicht so nah, und er wohnt dummerweise noch mit seiner Ex zusammen, das ist auch nicht so schoen... Naja mal sehen was draus wird...

So, jetzt erst mal alles Gute, dann schreib doch auch mal auf deutsch zurueck!!! Bis bald, Sonja


February 21, 2007
7:00PM I called my children at LL’s number and the phone rang interminably and no one picked up the phone.
7:15PM called again, same result.
7:45PM called again same result. And then I decided to call LL’s cell phone. I left a message:
8:23PM I called LeeAnn to tell her that today’s telephone call did not happen. I told her that I do not have an agenda with my children – she had told Helmers that she thought both LL and I have agendas.

February 21, 2007
Dear Lorena,
Today is Wednesday, an official telephone call day. I had promised Sofia on Monday that I would call today. I called today starting at 7PM, the official calling time and then every fifteen minutes until 8:00PM. Your telephone rang until I hung up. I waited for many rings each time. No one picked it up. At 7:45PM I called your cell phone and left you a message. It is now 8:30PM and I have not heard from you. What happened?
Sincerely,
Allan

February 22, 2007
I called the Bloom Elementary School again. Remember, I had called two days ago and they have not yet responded. I called to remind them of my desire to interact with Sofia and Hannah’s teachers. I also want copies of all documents
1. what are her strengths? Weaknesses? What is she learning through the week end? What is her homework tonight?
2. How does she interact with others?
3. Does she have friends? What are their names? (can you tell me?)
4. Have you interacted with my child’s therapist?
5. What has the mother of my child told you about me?
6. Has anyone else told you anything about me, who and what?
7. What is the joung author competition (Sofia only.)
8. What are her favorite activities in school?
9. Can you copy some of her work and keep it for me?

February 22, 2007
I called Helmers office and left a message asking him for an update.




A teacher is one who makes himself progressively unnecessary. – some one said that but I do not remember the name, but it has been in my head since about a week before Sofia was born and Leyla Colhmia told me this quote. Yes, I think so: Parenting is coaching kids to help them make better and better decisions in all parts of their life, so that when they grow up they are happy, successful adults. And I was able to inculcate enough of this parenting style in Sofia before LL and Nancy played their evil game on my daughters and me. Sofia still has some remnant of the “I can do it,” mentality especially outside of the domains of LL and Nancy. Hannah however is unfortunately not a “can do” child except in the very limited senses in which she can do better than Sofia. And what is that? It includes hitting, screaming, yelling and some athletic feats. Hannah is on medication and needs a tremendous amount of help. How can I convince anybody in this city of insecure assholes that the only person who can help Hannah and Sofia is me? When I told Craig Hanson, he laughed at me. (Inappropriate behavior.)

Can-do kids identify themselves by eagerly wanting to solve problems and do things themselves, thinking through ways to solve problems, and showing confidence in their ability to make good decisions. You probably don’t have a can-do kid if you solve most problems for your kid, think things through for your kid, or have a kid that is short on self-confidence. Sofia is like this with me in many ways – mostly the academic ways. I understand that she now has the self motivation to read and has won the second prize in the junior author competition at her school – something I want her teacher to copy for me so that I can make sure that it remains documented.

Now here is the trick, just in case you think I am projecting, But ‘can do’ parents do not motivate ‘can do’ kids. Maybe its because any high achieving parents give their kids too much stuff, squashing their motivation, and they make too many decisions for them, making them poor at solving their own problems. But probably it is because it’s just plain awful when kids turn out like their parents – kids need their own sphere and to work on it until they are adults
And so I wonder about good parenting, how to do it. There is no equation. There are some broad generalizations. Respect, love, ethics and so one and on.
My four-year-old, Sofia lost a toy in the back underneath the sofa in LL’s apartment and asked me to get it. “Ich kann, so weit, nicht,” I can’t reach it—Mein Arm ist zu groβ,”my arm’s too big, “Was kőnnen wir machen?” what should we do?” Sofia had tried too and didn’t have a long enough arm. Of course I could have pulled the couch off the wall to retrieve the toy, but instead asked, “Golly, how can we get it?” Suddenly she said said, “Ich weiβ, I know,” ran to get a long toy and was able to push the toy out from under the seat. She ran around the house gleefully shouting to everyone, “I figured it out, I figured it out!” This distant example contains some of the essence: be positive and encourage the child to figure things out on her own.
It sometimes is a very short, simple activity that is successful. For example, instead of dictating what my soon to be 7-year-old Hannah would wear to a birthday party, I would say, “Hannah, if you lay out three sets of clothes and say what you’d like or dislike about each, you get to choose.” I would compliment her sincerely on her decision processes. “ It will be one if the first time I dream of her getting complimented, rather than criticized, her judgment, and it could make a real impression on her because ‘see, I can be smart.’”
And I can think of two kinds of things which are necessary for this kind of method to work (it does not always work) One is results. Kids naturally become proud of their ability to figure things out when their decisions turn out to be good ones. The second is praise from parents. Sincere praise. It’s almost like cheerleading: “Kids, good for you for figuring out how to organize your study desks!” My children are in dire need of love and resourcefulness. They have not had much of this during the last three years, since arriving in the USA. High achievers are motivated to figure out how to get over, around, or through obstacles. They live to meet challenges, because they are resourceful.
Oh, and forcing kids to learn things is fruitless. It’s about figuring things out. Think about Nemo, Home Alone, Harry Potter. But Resourcefullness is power and as George W Bush, Kim Dial, Hitler, Ginger Crumbo and Pol Pot have shown, power can be abused. Yes, good parenting turbo-charges motivation and resourcefulness, but I want and must provide moral guidance for their can-do kids to do the right things.
And the opposite parenting style generates children with a PHD (Ginger Crumbo has one of these)… they are (P) passive, (H) helpless, and (D) dependent on parents to solve their problems. Depression and suicide in my teenage daughters will happen if I can not break through this shit. I must find a ways to invite my children to be up-beat and confident; as they should be, and because they are successful in life so far! Look at the way they have survived the hell from the Lasky family! (Not a topic for until they are older.)
Now, my children are just like other children and admittedly they must now be like Nancy and LL, so I do not suggest dealing with misbehavior by saying, “You impose your own consequences”… UNTIL kids are responsible, can-do kids. Can-do kids are almost never disciplined—they have liberal curfews, and there are few time outs… but only because they are very responsible for their age. They know there will be severe consequences with bad choices. They like the freedom and independence they earn, and when they mess up (as all kids do) they impose real consequences on themselves. And this will take a long time because of the destruction that KY CPS has imposed and LL and Nancy have enforced.
When my kids solve problems they know it, and they are proud. When Sofia does math problems with me on the phone or when she calculated the number of tiles on the floor by multiplying, she feels her wonder. When I praise my kids for smart judgments, they glow. But here’s the clincher: kids earn more and more freedom and independence when parents trust their judgments more and more. And as soon as I have custody of my children I believe I will see the results immediately although then later there may be intervals when the spark may appear dead, but it merely lies dormant, just waiting to perk up.
You know the worse thing about Tony Blaire telling the world that the situation is getting better in Iraq is that if anybody were to go there, they would find that Tony is a liar and be murdered… or even before they had done any research, be murdered. The military does not allow it. There is something like this in my family. If anyone were to investigate the Lasky’s they would discover the psychological derangement and establish the coaching -- but no one allows it. There is something very sinister about Nancy and LL, and I find the greatest sin of people even above their crimes is their positions ‘she knows what is right blah blah blah.’ Where do you find the good? I am overwhelmed by the conviction that there will be another heinous move by LL and Nancy. I sense when I look at this history that LL and Nancy have created the whole fateful madness and while I have kept the ‘faith,’ I do not have the social power to realize something better.

February 22, 2007
Liebe Sonja,
Ich soll dir auf Deutsch zurueck schreiben? OK, wenn es sein muss…Es ist eine absolute Scheisse das dein Liebhaber nicht mit dir wohnt. Es ist natuerlich sehr moeglich das er keine sexuele Beziehung mit seiner x-Frau hat, es ist auch moeglich dass er sie nicht liebt und so weiter. Aber in der Zwischenzeit must du dir fragen was er macht? Benutzt er deines ‘da sein fuer ihm’ wenn er in Holland ist oder wenn er sich in deiner naehe befindet? I also don’t know if you have an open relationship. Maybe both you and he are taking pleasure in one another while it is available because there is nothing wrong with that. It is only not a chronically-dream-relationship.
I too am stuck in such a situation. My lover is in Asuncion. She is Colombian and has a Ph.D and teaches both at the American School and at the University of Asuncion. I love her dearly but I see her even less than you see your lover. She lives with her x-husband. When I visit her, she takes me to one of those hotels where you pay by the hour and we make love like bandits.
As far as meeting you in South America, I would have to be a little lucky…. I really want to go, but I am in the middle of a terrible custody battle (for my children, Sofia and Hannah) and I can not give up on them.
I have not a Ph.D, and I am jealous that you are working on yours and the topic that you are researching is both beautiful and very interesting. Congratulations!
Allan

February 22, 2007

Dear Martha,
How are things in your life? I wonder wonder wonder... when you sent your email did not tell me when you went to Italy and am guessing that you have been? What were the high points of your time (if you went to Italy or otherwise if you did not)? I met Rena at a mediation meeting, with lawyers and legal jargon etc, but I was able to ask her if she had communicated with you and she said that she had not. She also said that she communicates pretty much only with the person from whom she had purchased ‘La Plazita.’ (I can’t remember her name.) She also admitted that she had not communicated with you and I told her that I thought it would be nice. Don’t know what else to say or do. I am sad if she does not communicate with you if I have anything to do with it, but I do know for 100% certain that she does not want to communicate with me.

Hey, Peter just called. I had mentioned him to you in previous emails. I told him that I was emailing you and he asked me to send you his problem solving management technique:” Just be. You are right.”

Ok, well I sure wish you and Rena can communicate. I wish for all together communication on a great scale all over the world. I just watched Tony Blair on TV.
And it seems to me that the worse thing about Tony Blaire telling the world that the situation is getting better in Iraq is that if anybody wanted to go there, they would find that Tony is a liar and so the military does not allow it. That’s not fair and fairness is realized only if there is communication in the world. Ok, here is another example: 1 in 8 women get breast cancer but only 3.2% of the money that is available for cancer research looks into the causes of breast cancer and very few know this and or do anything about this. Bloated bureaucracies and government inertia prevent action.

Ok, enough! Martha, I think of Alec and hope all is well. I hope you had a wonderful time in Venice (or that you will) and that everything is falling into place. It must be cold where you are. It is cold here too, and my head is bald so I can not survive long without a hat. Then I think of Alec, he must be an incredible guy!
Allan. .

February 22, 2007
7:00PM I try to call my children and the phone just rings.
7:15PM I call again and it is again, to no avail.

February 22, 2007
Dear Lorena,
So now what? I tried to call my children today again and it was the same as yesterday. I called today because you had written in an email that I should consider the next day as a calling day when a day is missed (by you at least.)
Sincerely,
Allan

February 22, 2007
I called LeeAnn to let her know that the telephone conversation tonight with my daughters had not worked out because no one had picked up the phone.

February 23, 2007
I made a child support payment.

I stopped by Helmers office and saw him in passing. I asked him to send me an email.

LeeAnn Gardner called. Our conversation was silly: She said “we will just have to agree to disagree.” I said “It’s like Tony Blair stating that the situation in Iraq is getting better but no one can go there because the military will not let you so he can get away with this disgusting lie.”

Then I called her back and left a message stating that if anyone did even the slightest bit of research into this family they would realize the disgusting folly of its evolution.

LeeAnn plays underhanded character assassination.

February 23, 2007
Please confirm the visit location for Sunday at 3:30pm
You spoke to the childen on MOnday for more than 30 minutes, which is not a scheduled call day. You also spoke on Sunday. Once you speak to them Friday, you will have your 3 calls for this week.
By the way, they will never be home Thursday at 7pm--they have ballet practice at that time.

February 23, 2007
Allan; as Lorena requested, please confirm the visit location. As I have requested multiple times, stop copying me on things of which I have no control (ie: telephone calls). Richard

February 23, 2007
Dear Richard,
Relax.
Take a deep breath.
Let it out.
I want someone to stay up to date with the tel. issue because it is important for Sofia and Hannah. What do you suggest?
Again, breath easy.
ready?
DOG HILL confirmed (Lorena sent her email at 09:45 or so, you got it at 14:30 or so and I am confirming at 16:55 or so.)
Sincerely,
Allan.

Dear Lorena,
I spoke with LeeAnn Gardner and she said that it is not true that you had called her and it is not true that she called you back. You had said this with Richard Nassr present, last Sunday. Again, I am concerned about the truth value of your statements.
Sincerely,
Allan

February 23, 2007
And even though I asked Helmers to send me an email he did not. Indeed there has been absolutely no progress in the situation for my children and they continue to fester in the uncalled-for Lasky enmity towards me.

February 23, 2007
Dear Lorena,
In the email below you write "Once you speak to them Friday,..." and I called at 7:00PM, 7:15PM, 7:30PM and 7:45PM and each time, nobody was available to pick up the phone. What this means is that your sentence is without truth. The rest of your email implies that the week starts at midnight on Saturday...
Sincerely,
Allan

February 24, 2007
I am perfectly relaxed, thanks. No more emails as to things that I have no control. Face-to-face parenting time issues only. Because you copy me on
emails regarding lack of phone contact is no more proof for Sofia and Hannah's cause than you keeping a copy yourself. I spend way too much time
wading through the countless emails each day. Alicia or myself will see you on "dog hill". Thanks, Richard

February 24, 2007
Allan,

The first motion was for a hearing on visitations, which took place last Monday, February 19. You did not attend that hearing, but Helmers must have been present. I suggest you ask him what was decided at the February 19 hearing for interim relief relating to visitations.

In connection with the second motion, ask Helmers whether the income information has been exchanged and what date has been set for the motion for interim relief on child support payments.

Your Dad

I used Farfar’s email to fashion one for John:

Dear John, One of the motions you filed was for a hearing on visitations, which took place last Monday, February 19. I did not attend that hearing, because you told me not too, but you must have been present. What was decided at the February 19 hearing for interim relief relating to visitations?

In connection with the second motion, has the income information has been exchanged? And what date has been set for the motion for interim relief on child support payments?
Thank you,
Allan

February 24, 2007
At 1:00PM I tried to call my daughters and the phone simply rang.
At 2:00PM Sofia called and left a message “please, Daddy, call my back since we missed talking with you yesterday.”
At 3:00PM I heard the message and tried to call back but no one picked up the phone. I tried again at 4:00PM.
6:06PM I called and Hannah answered the phone! She responded immediately (she must have been prompted to say this) “Daddy, we are about to a Chinese restuaruant so Mommy says we will call you back.” I said “Ok, Hannah, I love you.”
6:07PM, a minute later, LL called me and tells me that she wants me to speak with the children on the way to the Chinese restaurant and is about to pass on the phone to one of the children, when I said “No, wait! Please tell me about the children’s day?” LL said “They went to girl scouts and then they went swimming at the YMCA.”
Then Hannah got the phone. Note, I was speaking with Hannah on the cell phone, it was not on the speaker. This means that LL is not scared to what I might tell the children – she must know that I am going to tell them that the things they have been saying to their therapists are not true… I guess she doesn’t care because now, so many years have gone by that nothing can be made of it. So, I start talking about Girl scouts. What did you do?
“We got our faces painted!”
“Oh, did anyone take a picture of you?”
“No, but I also got some Chop sticks and put them in my hair and it looks good. And we also bought braids…” “And we made a heart, with two flowers.”
“Once again I need to put the phone down and now I have to put on my seat belt.”
I was able to gather that there had been presentations from various cultures at the girl scouts event and Hannah proceeded to tell me about something to do with Antigua, (I think she had a booklet because she was able to spell out various longer and strange words as well) And Paraguay. We tasted some ……. (was that Sopa Paraguaya?” I could not tell. But Hannah did say that it tasted good. “And Thailand and boats and Kenya… we… that’s where we stage painted our faces… And that’s not all but that’s what we
I know Mexican taco.”
And the other one
Where did we get out Greece
In Greece we got our names written in Greek and that was a strange thing for Hannah to get, but in the end she understood that the place was Greece and the Language Greek. She told me that she had learned how to write her name in Greek. “Oh, what does Hannah look like with Greek Letters?” I asked and she said “ There is a curvy h and then a Loopty loop a and two v’s and then another loopty loop a and a curvi h that I put on the end because they had not done so.” Then Hannah said “You need to go pee, Henry?” and that means that she was back in LL’s place? But we talked about the fact that Henry does not like to go out in the rain and “And henry is a cat and doesn’t like water.”
“What animals like rain?” I asked her.
“Frogs, hippo, fish polar bears, dolphins whales, fish, crocodiles.” And then again she said “One minute I need to put my seat belt on.” And then I asked her, “What animals do not like water?” and her answer was again awesome: “Cats, birds, zebras lions, ants, camels, ostriches, cheetas, red robbin,
Plants,
At some point she told me “The tree loves oxygen, “ and then she added “And of course, the animals too.”
“What animals do not live in water?”I asked and spawned an awesome list that lasted many minutes and included: Giraffe, monkey, eagles, woodpecker, “I forgot one animal, horse.”
“What plant likes rain?”Trees, dandilions, lillipads,
“What about the cactus?” I asked her. “Oh yeah! Cactus that is prickly.” And then she told me a story that I was not able to follow exactly but it sounded like there were “Avatars who drank the cactus juice and got mad and it looked like the shape of mushrooms.”
“What animals live in salt water? Fresh water?” was the next series of questions and she came up with the following animals:
Algae, crabs, sea urchins, sharks, scorpions, jelly fish, sea urchins,
What does a sea urchin look like?
“I’m still thinking?” she said and asked Sofia and LL.
“Oh, Fish hide in it like nemo’s dad.” Said Hannah.

“What animals live in the air?”
Birds, god, plants, stars, eagles, blue birds, angles,

Flying fish squirrels, havwe extra skin, glide,
Pterodactyl,

Some how, Hannah then stated that “Sofia lost volcanic rock. How did the volcano go away?” she asked.
I’m goona tell vera and sofia,

Sofias turn happened just as they were arriving at the Chinese restaurant:”Do you already know what you want to eat?” I asked and Sofia said that she was getting what she always gets: noodles, egg rolls, sushi, broccoli and chicken and steamed rice. I asked her if she like soy sauce and she admitted that she did though she rarely uses it. Then I asked her questions like the following:
8. I am 100m tall. I have a trunk. I need carbon dioxide and water. What am I?
9. If you had a choice about how tall you can be, would you want to be short, average, or tall? Why would you choose this height?
10. I am 32m long, I am an excellent swimmer and I am a mammal, What am I?
11. If you had to choose between being rich and not happy or poor but happy, what would you choose?
12. I walk on four legs, then two legs and then three legs. What am I?
13. Would you cheat if you knew you wouldn't get caught?
14. What is next in the sequence: 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64…




February 25, 2007


I was on my computer at Days and Alicia taps me on the shoulder and says that she “is here.” I said “I want to speak with you for a while.” I saw that she did not want to speak with me. She gave me one of those ‘I don’t care’ smiles and I told her that I had been insulted by her stating that the reason she was there was to “supervise.” “There has to be a less insulting or demeaning way to phrase that. Perhaps…” She interrupted me with some thing that I can not remember and I then continued “perhaps you could say that it was because a judge had ordered it…”

First the children sent LL emails!

I showed Hannah pictures of her father and their family and we tried calling Scottie but Hannah left a message. I believe this may have been momentous for Hannah.

The children watched videos of the last visit and in particular Hannah loved the video of the “who you gonna call? Ghost-busters!” song she and Sofia sing.

We went to the car and that was fun too. Sofia and Hannah and I chased one another around the parking lot.

I made a recording of them working on the plates, but most unfortunately I did not record the conversation that ensued. Damned!

An interesting visit. Over an hour and more into the visit, Hannah said to me "Grammy is the one who speaks badly about you Daddy." This came completely out of the blue. I believe Hannah. I believe that while Lorena knows absolutely what her mother has done to the children, she has not done anything about it. Nancy coached the children to make statements to the social workers while they lived for their first year in the USA. (I do believe that Lorena also looked on while the coaching took place at discrete times because in June of 2004, Sofia told me so on the telephone.) And by the way, this happened while the children were painting their ceramic plates. Hannah said that Grammy said things like “I did peepee or I need a doctor or… (what was the third reason? Grammy doesn’t like me.) But the problem with Kentucky CP is that it has not bothered to inquire about the evil (my own word) grandmother. Hannah then went on to say "You never did anything bad to us." Sofia added "We all know that.” It is really a shame you were not here. And it is also a real shame that Alicia was doing what ever she was doing because she is worse than Richard. Ok bye.

I spoke quite a bit of German with my children today.

When kissing the children good bye I told LL that the children had sent her various emails and that I was hoping that email exchanges could take place between the children and I.

LL arrived a little late. She called first… I put Alicia on the phone with LL.
Then I called Richard back because I want to talk with him.

Of course I do not think that anything will come of this. No one gives a shit.


February 25, 2007: I got the following email from Sofia that she had written on my computer while at Day’s Coffee house.
EQ4FGSRNDFJVBNIONXSVHBGHMNJBWDFGBGUHMDSDFGHKJHGFRSDADEFRTGHJGFDSA

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
sdfetghyfesvyjuhujunmk,l.seZRGTFVUYJ/P'kj.LKDSRAezxdHJU'/
OHLKJGDWsaDGY"?kjHJKDRAwszcfgHST'O?"LJKYGFSRDEwAZjcblg;/h"J".;l,gkjsdcaVBHNJKL.;f'/H?>b,kcjhbgsFADFCAgvhbcjklh;n'k
L"?NH.g,fmhagFAhjisodp[f;g
'hjK";lhkgjhfytfrdcfvgdhfjgkil;'j
kJ'h;glfkdjshaGFACvdbnhjml,;.'/HG.,mzhghbjskdl
'ghj?;lhkgfdscv aBNKL'sd
fGHJ.,hkmgjhfdsaXc vBSNDFMGK,LH.;/KJ'HGLKFJDHSGFAdxC Vbznjdkflg;h'j
I";hgloifudystfdzsxcsghdjrklt;'y
UJK
"m;lkjghfdsaDSFGHFGHJ'K
;LGKJFHDSFAdSsadFGHFKHLJ''HG;FLDKSJHGfdASCFdghxfjhg;jK';hgifdusygatfDSAdgfhmkj,lmnbvcxZzaSXDCVFBGNHMJNBVCDSXAZZXcdvfbgnbvcxzZXcvbnmb vcxzzXFCGHXJFKCGLB.N/ HMGNBVCXDZX

February 25, 2007: LL got this from Sofia
AaBbCcDdEeFfGgHhIiJjKkLlMmNnOoPpQqRrSsTtUuVvWwXxYyZz

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

February 25, 2007: Hannah sent this to LL
dear mommy when we were trying to find daddy's computer Sofia pushed me. and I ran. Love, Hannah

Now, I want to complain about these ridiculous supervisors. First Alicia agrees to go places in a car, then she says that Richard said, in a telephone call ten minutes later, that we could not go in a car. I had two reactions: First, What is that? I am not a yoyo. And second, I did not believe her even though she urged me to call Richard. I tried to call Richard who did not answer his phone. That made me believe her even less. After the parenting time was over, I called Richard and asked him to call me back so that we could discuss the incident. He never did. But Richard had left a message on my answering machine telling me that I may call him and telling me at what time he would be in a supervisory role so that I would know when he would pick up the phone. Also, Alicia told me to call Richard. So I am now sure that Richard lied about my being able to call him, and I am fairly sure that Alicia lied when she said that she had spoken with Richard about going in the car.

February 25, 2007
Oh dear, even though I spent some time with my children today, I was supposed to call them and I forgot. Even funnier is that I did call LL by mistake, (I accidentally pushed the talk button on my cell phone and she responded).) She too, did not mention about me speaking with the girls.

February 26, 2007
Called John Helmers and asked the secretary, Amanda to provide me with an update. She told me that Jill, Helmers secretary was off today and that Helmers was in court. She assured me that she would speak with Hemers and call me back. I asked her to leave a message, if I do not pick up the phone.

Called the Bloomington Elementary school and left my email address, for the third time, for Hannah and Sofia’s teachers to email me.

And finally I got an email from the school my children are attending. It seems very distant and I believe it was a carefully crafted email written by only one of the teachers on their own and the behalf of the others. It is also worth noting that it took a long time for anyone to make contact with me. Finally, recall the email that LL sent telling me that I should first make contact with the principal of the school and I am significantly impressed with the notion that the stench from the Lasky-Ungaro lies is in the school.

February 26, 2007
Please send two self-addressed envelopes so we can send your children's report card
to you. This would show how they are doing in school.
Thanks Pat Baldwin/ Jenny Davis and Cindy Odgen

I responded:

Dear Pat Baldwin, Jenny Davis and Cindy Odgen,
Thank you very much for your email. I will certainly send you “two self-addressed envelopes” so that you can send me Sofia and Hannah’s report cards. I am a little curious why you need to send the report cards in separate envelopes?

Sofia told me last week that she had won a prize for a story she wrote. A ‘young author’ award? I would very much like to get a copy of that work. Do you think, you could make a photocopy? And I will be more than glad to reimburse you the copy costs…

But I am very much more concerned about the well being of my daughters than report cards can even come close to mitigating. I am a teacher and understand the myriad encumbrances upon the profession and certainly am asking for only the normal exchange of information to which parents are entitled. Thus may we please set up a telephone conference with each of you? Both my daughters are in a very difficult situation and I am sure it may be very helpful for someone at the Bloom Elementary School to speak with me about the circumstances surrounding them: Is there a counselor at the school and may I please be put in touch with this person?

Thank you very much,
Allan R. Lasky-Headrick

February 26, 2007
I met Scottie on line and he was very happy to have gotten Hannah’s message on his answering machine. He was truly sad that he had not gotten back to call her in time. I gave him LL’s telephone number and told him to try there. “Why not?” I said because he said he was nervous to get in touch with LL. Scottie said that I had made him very happy by having Hannah call his phone and leave a message. He told me that Hannah had said “Hello, this is your daughter Hannah and I would like to speak with you so can you please call me back? Bye.” Scottie told me that he had listened to Hannah’s voice over and over again when he realized it was Hannah! I told Scottie that we would try and call him next week end.

February 26, 2007
I tried to call my children at 7:00PM and Vera, the baby sitter answered the phone. She told me that LL was not there to allow me to speak with my daughters so I told her that I would call LL and maybe things could be arranged. When I tried to call LL’s cell phone she did not pick up so I left a message. “Hi Rena, Vera told me that you were not home so I wanted to speak with Sofia and Hannah, could you call Vera to make this happen?”

I called LeeAnn Gardner to let her know what happened with calling my children tonight.

February 26, 2007
Dear Sofia and Hannah,
Yesterday you sent Mommy emails from my computer and I hope that you get this email on Mommy’s computer so that you can write to me. Please send Mommy and Grammy my love. Now I have some questions for Sofia:
First draw a picture of a circle, then, using scissors, cut it in half, and then cut it in quarters. You should now have four quarter pieces of the circle. Now:
1. How many quarters is a half?
2. How many quarters is a half and a quarter?
Now cut it into eighths by cutting each quarter into half their size.
3. How many eighths in a full circle?
4. How many eighths in 3 quarters?
5. Is one half the same as four eighths?
6. How many eighths is a half plus a quarter plus an eighth?
And now for the last tough question: What is an eighth times 2, times 2, times 2, times 2, times 2, times 2, times 2??????
And I also have some questions for Hannah:
1. What is a tail good for?
2. Why do you think fish tails go up and down, but whales have flat tails?
3. Do you think there are mermaids in the ocean?
4. If you could be an animal for five minutes, what animal would you like to be?
5. What is a sea horse? Do they have tails?
6. Do you think that airplanes have tails for the same reason birds have tails? Do you think these tails are important for flying?
Lots of Love, your Daddy


February 27, 2007
LeeAnn Gardner called to say that LL had just called and wanted to set up a time for us to meet. I told her that after 3:30PM was better for me but given the urgency of the situation, I would take anything. I agreed to Monday at 1:00PM. That was the earliest possible according to LeeAnn. It is 6 days away!

February 27, 2007
I called Richard who had gotten my telephone messages and was concerned about the idea that someone else be supervising since they do not have the know how to handle the situation. I told him the reason why it was terrible that he was not present with my children and me yesterday was “because he was not there to interview Hannah and Sofia.” Richard told me that he had called and spoken with Helmers about a week ago and that he had been told by Helmers to await Judge’s orders. Richard re-itterated that LL and I had agreed to double the amount of time Sofia and Hannah spend with me. (LL did this only because she is under pressure.) He told me he would call Helmers right after hanging up with me. I asked him to please interview my children next week end and I think he agreed?

February 27, 2007
7:00Pm I called my children and LL picked up the phone. I asked her to give me an update on the children and with what sounded like extreme reluctance and scorn she said “well, they were in school.” I asked “what are they learning in school?” and she responded that Sofia was learning fractions. I told LL that I had sent Sofia an email about fractions. She wanted to know when I had sent it and I told her “last night.” Then LL passed the phone on to Sofia.

Sofia and I went over the questions in the email. First I asked her Hannah’s questions and then I asked her the questions that were for her. She did very well, but needed help with the tail questions: I asked “what do fishes use their tails for, monkeys, birds, snakes, horses?”
Draw a picture of a circle, cut it in half, in quarters. How many quarters is a half? How many quarters is a half and a quarter? Now cut it into eighths by cutting each quarter into half their size. How many eights in a full pie circle? How many eighths in 3 quarters? Is one half the same as four eighths? How many eighths is a half plus a quarter plus an eighth?

Then, when we were doing the math questions I asked her such zazzy questions as “what is one whole pie plus a half pie plus a quarter pie plus and eighth of a pie?” and she reasoned it out and said “15 eighths pie!” I thought “wow!” After speaking with her for 30 minutes, LL said that we had to stop in two minutes. At the end, Sofia told me that Hannah would call to say good night in a little while, but that she was still in the tub. I said “Ok, and I love you.”

February 28, 2007
Ok, and so we go on. Today was not exactly a productive day, but it at least kept me occupied.
1. I made a child support payment.
2. I stopped by Helmers and he gave me a copy of the order he and Trenaman have been haggling about. I’m like “to hell with haggling!” Let’s get this situation straightened out! I told Helmers that I must have things organized by this week end. I do not know if he listened to me. I was not easy on him. I asked him what happened on Monday the 19th and he told me that Trenaman had not appeared. I should have asked Helmers why he did not email me, but I let him off the hook.
3. I called my children the first time at the usual 7:00PM…

7:00PM, 7:15PM, 7:35PM I tried to call my children without success – no one picked up the phone.
I called LeeAnn to tell her about the failure to speak with my children.
I called Richard Nassr to ask him to meet with me before the next parenting time so that we can go over what the questionnaire will be like.

At 8:00PM I called and LL answered the phone. Hey ll, can you tell me about the children’s day? She said that they had just returned from giving the kitten away and that Hannah was very upset.

Here's a game that is fun and can be regularly played. Write a number over each letter of the alphabet. Let your child use a "master card" so that he can refer to it. That is, A has a 1 over it, B has 2, C has 3, etc. Then write a message like "Dad + Jimmy = _________." The problem is solved by changing each letter to a number, adding them, and then getting the total. You can also use division by writing "Dad divided by C = - ." (Likewise, you can use subtraction and multiplication as well.)
could hardly wait to go to school
To do what my sister did,
"But you're only four", my mother said,
"You're only a little kid."
I begged and begged until at last
She said "Okay, you can go."
The teacher agreed but cautioned me:
"You'll have to be quiet, you know."
The first day dawned and I skipped along
Holding my sister's hand,
"You'll have to do what the big kids do,
Sit still and be good, understand?"
I sat on a form with three other kids
With my arms folded fast and legs crossed,
But the thing I forgot that Mum said I'd to do,
I remembered too late at great cost.
I wriggled and squirmed as discomfort set in,
The feeling was too much for me,
In horror I watched as the trickle appeared.
And the kids in the class laughed with glee.

Introduction
Inside the mind of a kid that is grounded!
Grounded
Alone in my room, is where I will sit,
never before had I thrown such a fit.
stories and stories, I lied through my teeth,
hoping for a glimpse at a sign of relief.
They pushed and they pushed, until I gave in,
by now I should know that I never will win.
then came the punishment, for what I had done,
whatever it is it shall not be fun.
Everything's gone, no seeing nice weather,
for these next two weeks are gunna feel like forever.
With nothing to do, god forbid I should read,
but that's what they want, never follow their lead.
Just staring at walls, my but falls asleep,
there is nothing but silence not even a peep.
My TV is off, but I see people moving,
no bother to me it's actually quite soothing.
What am I saying? I think I've gone mad,
it's only three days and my life's already sad.
Every second goes by like a month or a year,
why don't they realize I'm dying in here?
Someone come get me before I go crazy,
I should use the excuse,"This is making me lazy"!
"Knock-knock" what is that? you say that it's over,
why I got up and plowed like a freak'n bull dozer.
The moral of this story is that crime doesn't pay...
and never mop the floor with your grandpa's toupee!




Sofia showed me a magic square. I asked her why the five always has to be in the middle and her answer was basically emotional and possibly correct?
8 1 6
3 5 7
4 9 2

Then Hannah read me two bed time stories: The first one was about a Mommy Monster puttng all her little ones to bed and telling them all that they are special.

Good night moon, good night vmars, time for all my little riends to go to brf
Monsters
Special with a smile in her heart
Why am I so special?
Color all over the walls
And Hannah describes the pictures that are in the book
Thank you for loving me.
And that is the end.


“How many pages are left in the book,” Hannah was curious, then she added “It does not say so I will tell you when I count.” At the end of the story she counted the pages and said there were 42.

“One second I need to itch my hand.” Said Hannah and then she continued reading.

I told Hannah that she is special and that I love her and Sofia with all my heart. I told her that she was special because:
Creative, -- play on the playground
Intelligent – reader, processing reality, answering questions, fast learner, Spanish, german,
Fun – laugh
Emotional – as she had shown about Luna tonight.
Resourcefull, always unafraid to try nrew things and to think them up.
Playful -

And then Hannah read me a story called “Goldie locks box has chicken pox”
Chicken pox from head to toes and she shook her head and a baby bear can not get chicken pox, can get them. With the sky falling you can not get chicken pox if you are a henny penny

Ice cream cold
poem
And just then, when she was finished reading he story LL told her that her time was up and Hannah said that she had to go. I said “I love you Hannah.” And the phone went dead.

February 28, 2007: I sent LL the following message.
Dear Lorena,
I called at 7:00PM, then again at 7:15PM and then again at 7:36PM. It is unacceptable that you did not pick up the phone the first time I called since that is the time you agreed that the children and I would be able to speak. It was almost 8:00PM when you picked up the phone and we could talk. This kind of thing is a frequent occurrence: the call does not get through because you are not home or the phone is no good or something else and either you forsake the call, or it is postponed for another day or as happened tonight, I am lucky to get through at some distant time. The frequency of this failure to have the telephone interaction take place at the appointed time (over the years) is about 90% and 90% of the time it is because of things at your end. It is absolutely essential that when the children and I are scheduled to speak on the phone and something prevents that occurrence from happening then, that you call me.
Sincerely,
Allan

So, now I must get ready for the next time I am with my children. I will want to talk with them about their grandmother but there are some rules that I want to lay down:
1. The children must be safe. That means that there can be no repercussions from them speaking about their lives with the Lasky-Ungaros. The only way to guarantee that is to promise them that anything that they say will never be said to anyone. Richard and I will not tell LL, not tell Nancy, not tell anyone in the Lasky family and we will not tell Kim Dial, not tell Ginger Crumbo and we will not tell the Judge. We will tell nobody. It will be as if nothing had ever been said.
2. The children should be happy. I want to come up with fun things for them to do while we are talking. I think it might be more fun if we drive somewhere and then I make a video of them singing like they did for the ghost buster movie.
3. I must get Richard to swear that he will tell no one. Fuck him if he wants to change the world – he has lost that chance. All he can do is make it better.
4. We must not try in any way to blame LL. We will focus exclusively on the behaviors of Nancy.
And here are some of the questions I want to ask.
1. Did you send Grammy my love?
2. Do you remember going to the school near Grammy’s house?
3. Do you remember when I came to visit you then and Mommy and I took you to see Peter Pan?
4. And then I had to go to Texas because that was where my house is, and you lived with Grammy. Was Grammy nice to you?
5. Was Grammy nice to you about me, your Daddy?
6. Like what would Grammy do? Or say to you about me?
7.



February 28, 2007

I sent the following article to Richard Nassr:

In the past decade, there has been an exponential increase in research on the accuracy of young children's memories and the degree to which young children's memories and reports can be molded by suggestions implanted by adult interviewers. Although some of these studies document the strengths of young children's memories, increasing numbers of studies highlight their weaknesses when they are interviewed under certain conditions. As will be explained, these same interview conditions, which have a high risk of contaminating young children's reports, characterize the available investigative interviews carried out with the 20 child witnesses in the Kelly Michaels case. In this brief, we present a summary of the pertinent social science research that addresses the issues of children's suggestibility. Our primary focus is on the conditions under which preschool children are most suggestible. Referring to interviews used with Wee Care children, we conclude that the procedures of interviewing these children were so faulty that they may have substantially increased the risk that the children's subsequent reports were mere reflections of the interviewers' suggestions.
This brief also contains a summary of some of the conditions which have been shown to increase the reliability of young children's reports, and which act as a safeguard against the production of false reports. The Wee Care children were not interviewed under these safer conditions. Finally, we will argue that the failure to record the initial interviews with any of the child witnesses rules out the possibility of ever reaching any firm conclusion as to whether any abuse actually occurred. In other words, the primary evidence has been destroyed.
A. Research on Children's Suggestibility
Children's suggestibility has been a focus of research since the turn of the twentieth century. There have been many studies that examine the influence of a single misleading suggestion on children's recall of an event; generally, these studies indicate that in a variety of conditions, young children are more suggestible than adults with preschoolers being more vulnerable than any other age group (see attached article by Ceci and Bruck, 1993a for the most recent review of this literature). In the past 5 years, there has been a major paradigmatic shift in this research in an attempt to make it more forensically relevant. As more and more children are called to court to provide uncorroborated testimony, especially in cases involving child sexual abuse, social scientists have turned their attention from studying the effects of a single misleading question on children's recall of neutral, nonscripted, and often uninteresting events, to examining the accuracy of children's testimony under a range of conditions that are characteristic of those that bring children to court. One important area of study concerns the effects of different interviewing techniques on the reliability of children's reports. These studies go beyond the examination of how a single misleading question influences children's reports; rather, they examine the effects of a host of implicit and explicit suggestive techniques that can be woven into the fabric of the interview through the use of bribes, threats, repetitions of certain questions, and the induction of stereotypes and expectancies (Ceci & Bruck, 1993a).
It is important to understand that this is a rapidly expanding area of inquiry. Reviews of the literature that were published only a few years ago, are now out-of-date. For example, in 1989, Cornell University hosted an international conferences which called together major researchers in the area of child testimony (J. Doris ed. 1991). At that conference some researchers made the following types of statements:

(m)ost research on children as eyewitnesses has relied upon situations that are very different from the personal involvement and potential trauma of sexual abuse. Researchers have used brief stories, films, videotapes or slides to simulate a witnessed event. A few have used actual staged events but these events are also qualitatively different from incidents of child abuse (Goodman & Clarke-Stewart, p. 92-93).
As will become clear in our presentation, this statement no longer characterizes the relevant research. Researchers have developed paradigms to examine children's reports of salient and personally-experienced events that involve their own bodies. No longer do older maxims hold that when children are inaccurate in their reporting about such events it is because they make errors of omission (i.e, they fail to report important events) rather than errors of commission (i.e. they insert inaccurate details). Rather the newer research indicates that under certain conditions, young children also make errors of commission about personally experienced events involving their own bodies.
In the section below, we summarize some of the major findings of this area of research. We also provide examples of how different suggestive interview techniques were used in the investigative interviews with the Wee Care children.
1. The Effects of Interviewer Bias on Children's Reports
A review of interviews of children suspected of sexual abuse reveals that some interviewers blindly pursue a single hypothesis that sexual abuse has occurred. In such interviews, the interviewer typically fails to rule out rival hypotheses that might explain the behavior of the child and as a result often concludes that the child was sexually abused. Some investigative and therapeutic interviewers claim that such techniques are necessary because sexually abused children are so scared or embarrassed that they will never willingly or spontaneously tell any interviewer, including their own parents of the past abuses. Therefore, they claim, it is necessary to use all available strategies to get the child to reveal sexual abuse. These strategies include the use of repeated leading questions, repeated interviews, bribes or threats, and the induction of stereotypes and expectancies (Ceci & Bruck, 1993a). Such strategies may prove successful when the child has been sexually abused; that is, the interviewer will be successful in drawing out a report of sexual abuse from the child. However, as we document below when interviewers have strong preconceived impressions of what happened, these biases can also result in the generation of false confessions from children.
The following three studies show that interviewers, who are given false information about certain events, often shape children's reports to be consistent with their inaccurate beliefs about what happened through the use of leading questions and other implicit suggestive techniques.
Clarke-Stewart, Thompson and Lepore (1989) conducted a study in which 5- and 6-year-olds viewed a staged event that could be construed as either abusive or innocent. Some children interacted with a confederate named Chester as he cleaned some dolls and other toys in a playroom. Other children interacted with Chester as he handled the dolls roughly in a mildly abusive manner. Chester's dialogue reinforced the idea that he was either cleaning (e.g., "This doll is dirty, I had better clean it"), or playing with the doll in a rough suggestive manner (e.g., "I like to play with dolls. I like to spray them in the face with water").
The child was then questioned about this event several times, on the same day, by different interviewers who differed in their interpretations of the event. The interviewer was either 1) accusatory in tone (suggesting that the janitor had been inappropriately playing with the toys instead of working), 2) exculpatory in tone (suggesting that the janitor was just cleaning the toys and not playing), or 3) neutral and non-suggestive in tone. In the first two types of interviews, the questions changed from mildly to strongly suggestive as the interview progressed. Following the first interview, all children were asked to tell in their own words what they had witnessed (this is referred to as "free recall"). They were then asked some factual questions (e.g., "Did the janitor wipe the doll's face?"), and some interpretive questions regarding the janitor's activities (e.g., "Was the janitor doing his job or was he just being bad?"). Then, each child was interrogated by a second interviewer who either reinforced or contradicted the first interviewer's tone. Finally, children were asked by their parents to recount what the janitor had done. When questioned by a neutral interviewer, or by an interviewer whose interpretation was consistent with the activity viewed by the child, children's accounts were both factually correct, and consistent with the janitor's script. However, when the interviewer contradicted the script, children's stories quickly conformed to the suggestions or beliefs of the interviewer; by the end of the first interview, 75% of children's remarks were consistent with the examiner's point of view, and 90% answered the interpretive questions in agreement with the interviewer's point of view, as opposed to what actually happened. Children changed their stories from the first to second interviews only if the two interviewers differed in their interpretation of the events; thus, when the second interviewer contradicted the first interviewer, the majority of children then fit their stories to the suggestions of the second interviewer. If the interviewer's interpretation was consistent across two interviews, the suggestions planted in the first session were quickly taken up and mentioned by the children in the second session. Moreover, when questioned by their parents, the children's answers were consistent with the interviewers' biases. Finally, although the effects of the interviewers' interpretations were most observable in terms of the children's responses to the interpretive questions about what the janitor had done, 20% of the children also made errors on the factual questions in the direction suggested by the biased interpretation, even though no suggestions had been given regarding these particular details. On a more practical level, these results suggest that if children experience an ambiguous event (e.g., touching), depending on the interviewers' beliefs about the touching, and how these beliefs get translated into questions, children may relate that it was good touching ("my teacher was only rubbing my back"), or bad touching ("my teacher was rubbing my bum").
Pettit, Fegan and Howie (1990) examined how interviewers' beliefs about a certain event affects (a) their style of questioning children about those events and (b) the accuracy of children's subsequent reports. Two actors, posing as park rangers, visited the classes of preschool children to ask them to help a bird find a nest for her eggs. During the presentation, one of the rangers accidently knocked a cake onto the floor. When the cake fell and shattered on the floor, there was an abrupt silence and a halt to all activities. Seven children, who were members of the class, did not view this event but had been taken to other parts of the school. Two weeks later, all children were questioned about the event.
Interviewers' beliefs about the event were manipulated. Some interviewers had full accurate knowledge of the event. Some were given inaccurate information (i.e. false beliefs). Other interviewers were given no information about the event. The interviewers were told to question each child until they found out what happened, and to avoid the use of leading questions. Despite the warning to avoid leading questions, 30% of all interviewers' questions could be characterized as leading, and half of these were misleading. Interviewers with inaccurate knowledge (false beliefs) asked four to five times as many misleading questions as the other interviewers. Overall, children agreed with 41% of the misleading questions, and children who were interviewed by biased interviewers gave the most inaccurate information. Thus if an interviewer's belief is contrary to what the child actually experienced, the interview is characterized by an overabundance of misleading questions which results in children providing highly inaccurate information. A similar finding was reported by Ceci, Leichtman & White (in press). Here, preschoolers were exposed to a touching-game, and then were interviewed one month later. The interviewer was given a one-page report containing information about what might have occurred. Some of the information was accurate and some was inaccurate. The interviewer was asked to conduct an interview to determine how much information the child could, in fact, still recall. The only instruction given to the interviewer was that she should begin by asking the child for a free narrative of what had transpired, avoiding all forms of suggestions and leading questions. Following this, the interviewer was instructed to use whatever strategies she felt necessary to elicit the most factually accurate report from the child.
When the interviewer was accurately informed, she got children to recall correctly most of the events that had transpired. Importantly, there were no false reports when the interviewer was correctly informed. However, when she was misinformed, 34% of the 3- to 4-year-olds and 18% of the 5- to-6-year-olds corroborated one or more false events that the interviewer erroneously believed had transpired. Thus, in the misinformed condition, the children made errors of commission. After two such interviews, children continued to give detailed, but false, accounts of bodily touching (e.g., some falsely claimed that their knees were licked and that marbles were inserted into their ears). Finally, the children in the misinformed condition seemingly became more credible as the interview unfolded. Many initially stated details inconsistently, or with reluctance or even denial, but as the interviewer persisted in asking about nonevents, some children abandoned their denials and hesitancy. These studies provide important evidence that interviewers' beliefs about an event can influence their style of questioning, which in turn can affect the accuracy of children's testimony. The data highlight the dangers of having only one hypothesis about the event in question--especially when this hypothesis is incorrect. Interviewers' biases, their blind pursuit of a single hypothesis, and their failure to test alternate, equally believable, explanations of the children's behavior are rife in the interviews conducted with the Wee Care children. These biases are revealed in the interviewers' persistently maintaining one line of inquiry (through the use of repeated leading questions, bribes and threats) even when children consistently replied that the questioned events never occurred. Interviewers' biases are also revealed in their failure to follow-up on some of the children's inconsistent or bizarre statements, for doing so might disconfirm their primary hypotheses. A long section of interaction illustrates some of these claims as do the following shorter pieces of dialogue in which the interviewer (Q) engages one child (A) in the following interactions during one of the initial investigatory interviews.
Q: Do you think that Kelly was not good when she was hurting you all?
A: Wasn't hurting me. I like her
Q: I can't hear you, you got to look at me when you talk to me. Now when Kelly was bothering kids in the music room
A: I got socks off
--------------------------
Q: Did she make anybody else take their clothes off in the music room?
A: No
Q: Yes
A: No
--------------------------
Q: Did you ever see Kelly have blood in her vagina?
A: This is blood
Q: Kelly had blood in her vagina
A: Yeah
Q: She did? Did you ever get any of that blood on your penis?
A: No. Green blood
Q: Did you ever see any of your friends get blood on their penis from her vagina?
A: Not green blood but red blood
--------------------------
Q: Tell me something, tell me about the piss box. The piss box that's in the music room?
A: No, up there. All the way up there
Q: Is the piss box the bench at the piano? When you open up the bench: is that the piss box?
A: Yeah
Q: It is?
A: Yeah
Q: And what happened, she would open it up?
A: And, popped it up
A: She popped it up and then what would you do?
A: Jump in it?
Q: Jump in it?
A: Yeah
Q: And would you have to pee in it? AL Yeah (about 10 questions later, the topic comes up again)
Q: So the pee-pee box is the bench at the piano and you flip it open?
A: No
Q: What is the pee-pee box?
A: This is the pee-pee box
Q: That's not a pee-pee box. That's a crayon box
--------------------------
Q: Did Kelly ever make you kiss her on the butt?
A: No
Q: Did Kelly ever say--I'll tell you want. When did Kelly say these words? Piss, shit, sugar?
A: Piss, shit sugar?
Q: Yeah, when did she say that, what did you have to do in order for her to say that?
A: I didn't say that.
Q: I know, she said it, but what did you have to do?
--------------------------
(In this section, the child is asked to use anatomically detailed dolls and different utensils)
Q: Okay, I really need your help on this. Did you have to do anything to her with this stuff?
A: Okay. Where's the big knife at. Show me where's the big knife at.
Q: Pretend this is the big knife because we don't have a big knife
A: This is a big one
Q: Okay, what did you have to do with that? What did you have to...
A: No..take the peanut-put the peanut butter
Q: You put what's that, what did you put there?
A: I put jelly right here
Q: Jelly
A: And I put jelly on her mouth and on the eyes
Q: You put jelly on her eyes and her vagina and her mouth
A: On her back, on her socks
Q: And did you have to put anything else down there?
A: Right there, right here and right here and here
Q: You put peanut butter all over? And where else did you put the peanut butter?
A: And jelly
Q: And jelly?
A: And we squeezed orange on her.
Q: And you had to squeeze an orange on her?
A: Put orange juice on her
Q: And did anybody--how did everybody take it off? How did she make you take it off?
A: No. Lick her all up, eat her all up and lick her all up
Q: You had to lick her all up?
A: And eat her all up
Q: Yeah? What did it taste like?
A: Yucky
Q: So she made you eat the peanut butter and jelly and the orange juice off of the vagina too?
A: Yeah
Q: Was that scary or funny?
A: Funny, funny and scary.
--------------------------
This interview is one of many that shows how interviewers did not seriously consider any evidence that was contrary to their primary beliefs. Thus when children's responses contained discrepant, inconsistent, incomprehensible or no information, the investigators only considered these responses to be consistent with the fact that abuse had taken place or else they chose to ignore these statements. We are struck by the inconsistencies and the bizarre statements made by the children in response to the interviewers' questions. Most adults interacting with children in these situations would try to figure out just what the child was thinking about or why the child might be so confused to make such statements. Yet this simply did not happen. The children were never asked common sense questions such as: "Did this happen to you or are you just pretending that it happened to you?" or "Did you see this happen or did someone tell you that it happened?" Children were never challenged about their statements, "Are you sure that this happened or are you telling me a joke?" Competent investigative interviewers would have used such techniques in order to understand how the alleged acts could actually be carried out in a short period of time in a very public place.
Our contention that the Wee Care interviewers held preconceived biases that these children were abused is not an inference, but is based on their statements justifying the use of their interviewing procedures. These interviewers believed that their major objective was to get the children to admit to sexual abuse.
Dr Susan Esquilin, a child therapist, presided over two heavily attended parent meetings when allegations were first made. She conducted five group therapy sessions with the Wee Care children and eventually assessed or treated 13 of the 20 child witnesses. She stated that her goal was to induce the children to discuss sexual abuse. In the first group therapy session, she told the children that they were assembled together because of some of the things that had happened at the Wee Care and with Kelly. Based on courtroom testimony, it seems that 4 children made allegations after their contacts with Esquilin. (5C, 11C, 14C, and 20C)
Lou Fonolleras, an investigator from the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS), conducted 82 interviews with Wee Care children and 19 interviews with Wee Care parents, between May 22 and July 8 1985. At trial, Fonolleras described his interviewing techniques as follows, "The interview process is in essence the beginning of the healing process." To rationalize his use of persistent questions with the children, he stated, "because it is my professional and ethical responsibility to alleviate whatever anxiety has arisen as a result of what happened to them." Fonolleras justified his telling children about other children's allegations by saying, " children who needed some reassurance...(that) they were not alone". Finally one other detail is of importance in understanding the bias and pursuit of a single hypothesis in Fonolleras' interviews. He himself had been abused as a child. And in at least one recorded interview he uses this to lead the child's testimony. At least 10 children made initial allegations after their interviews with Fonolleras. Eileen Treacy, an expert for the prosecution, also interviewed these children several times between November 1985 and February 1987. At trial she testified on her interviewing techniques, "So you open the interview in an effort to disempower Kelly of these super powers that she allegedly has or that the kids thought she had and also to let the children know that telling about these things was okay and they would be safe." Finally, we do not limit our consideration of interviews to those held between children with legal and therapeutic professionals, but also extend these to conversations between parents and their children. Although we do not have any recordings or descriptions of the structures of these conversations, parents were soon instilled with the belief that abuse had taken place. Two weeks after 16C made the initial allegation, Peg Foster a sex abuse consultant told the parents at a school meeting that three children had been abused and urged them to discover whether their own children had been abused.
Having documented that interviewer expectancies lead preschoolers to respond in ways that are compatible with these expectancies, and that the Wee Care interviewers possessed strongly held expectancies that the children were abused, we now review the components of suggestive biased interviews that have the largest impact on producing inaccurate reports from young children.

2. The Effects of Repeated Questions
A number of studies have shown that asking children the same question repeatedly within an interview and across interviews, especially a yes/no question (e.g., Poole & White, 1991), often results in the child changing her original answer. Preschoolers are particularly vulnerable to these effects. Children often do this because they seem to reason, "The first answer I gave must be wrong, that is why they are asking me the question again. Therefore I should change my answer". At other times, children may change their answer to please the adult who is questioning them; they reason that the "adult must not have liked the first answer I gave so I will give another answer". At other times, children's answers may change because the interviewer's previous suggestions become incorporated into their memories.
For example, Cassel and Bjorklund (1993) questioned children and adults about a videotaped event they had viewed one week earlier. The subjects were asked leading questions and if they did not fall sway to the lead, then they were asked a more suggestive follow-up question. Kindergarten children were most affected by this manipulation. As expected, compared to adults and older children, they were most inaccurate in answering the first misleading questions; but also when the second more suggestive question was asked, they were more likely than older subjects to change their answers and to incorporate the desired answer into their second responses.
Interviewers of the Wee Care children frequently repeated questions. They repeated questions when a child denied abuse or when then the the child's answer was inconsistent with what the interviewers believed. Although there are instances when children tenaciously rejected the interviewer's persistent suggestive questions, upon repetition of a question children often changed their answers to ones that were consistent with sexual abuse.
Q: When Kelly kissed you, did she ever put her tongue in your mouth?
A: No
Q: Did she ever make you put her tongue in her mouth?
A: No
Q: Did you ever have to kiss her vagina?
A: No
Q: Which of the kids had to kiss her vagina?
A: What's this?
Q: No that's my toy, my radio box. Which kids had to kiss her vagina?
A: Me

3. The Effects of Repeating Misinformation across Interviews
In most earlier studies of children's suggestibility, misinformation was planted only one time. However, our review of available transcripts reveals that not only is misinformation repeated within interviews, but it is commonly repeated across many different interviews.
A number of studies show that if children are repeatedly given misleading information in a series of interviews, this can have serious effects on the accuracy of their later reports (for a review, see Poole & White, in press). Not only can the misinformation become directly incorporated into the children's subsequent reports (they use the interviewers' words in their inaccurate statements), but it can also lead to fabrications or inaccuracies which do not directly mirror the content of the misleading information or questions.
For example, Bruck, Ceci, Francouer & Barr, (submitted) found that children will give highly inaccurate reports about a previous visit to a pediatrician's office if they are given multiple suggestions in repeated interviews. The children in this study visited their pediatrician when they were five years old. During that visit, a male pediatrician gave each child a physical examination, an oral polio vaccine and an inoculation. During that same visit, a female research assistant, talked to the child about a poster on the wall, read the child a story and gave the child some treats.
Approximately one year later, the children were re-interviewed four times over a period of a month. During the first three interviews, some children were falsely reminded that the pediatrician showed them the poster, gave them treats, and read them a story, and that the research assistant gave them the inoculation and the oral vaccine. Other children were given no information about the actors of these events. During the final interview, when asked to recall what happened during the original medical visit, children who were not given any misleading information were highly accurate in their final reports. They correctly recalled which events were performed by the pediatrician and by the research assistant. In contrast, the misled children were very inaccurate; not only did they incorporate the misleading suggestions into their reports, with more than half the children falling sway to these suggestions (e.g., claiming that the female assistant inoculated them rather the pediatrician), but 45% of these children also included non- suggested but inaccurate events in their reports by falsely reporting that the research assistant had checked their ears and nose. None of the control children made such inaccurate reports. Thus, when suggestions are implanted and incorporated, young children use these in highly productive ways to reconstruct and distort reality (see Chester Study above by Clarke-Stewart et al., and Sam Stone Study below by Leichtman & Ceci for similar results).
Unfortunately, we do not have any of the initial interviews with the Wee Care children and thus we cannot ascertain the degree to which the allegations that emerge in much later taped investigatory interviews reflect earlier implanted suggestions. It is also possible that some of the allegations that occurred in these investigatory interviews reflect suggestions implanted from earlier conversations with parents who were urged by professionals and by other parents to look for signs of abuse in their children.
It is also important to note that the suggestive interviews did not end in July 1985 with the completion of Fonelleras' investigation. Children were interviewed before they appeared before the grand jury. Children were questioned by therapists, and they were questioned by members of the prosecutors' office leading up to trial. These children were also questioned by the prosecution and the defense attorneys at the trial.
A consideration of the research findings suggests that if the children had not been abused, then this magnitude of repeated suggestive interviews could have the effect of increasing and cementing false reports.
4. Emotional Tone of the Interview
Children are quick to pick up on the emotional tones in an interview and to act accordingly. There is much information that can be conveyed in the emotional tone including, implicit or explicit threats, bribes, and rewards. For example, in some studies when an accusatory tone is set by the examiner, (e.g. "we know something bad happened", or "it isn't good to let people kiss you in the bathtub", or "you'll feel better once you tell", or "don't be afraid to tell"), then children in these studies are likely to fabricate reports of past events even in cases when they have no memory of any event occurring. In some cases, these fabrications are sexual in nature (see review in Ceci & Bruck, 1993b). For example, four years after children played with an unfamiliar research assistant for five minutes while seated across a table from him, Goodman and her colleagues asked these same children to recall the original experience, and then asked them a series of questions, including abuse-related suggestive questions about the event (Goodman, Wilson, Hazan & Reed, 1989; also described in Goodman & Clarke-Stewart, 1991). At this time, the researchers created what they described as "an atmosphere of accusation", by telling the children that they were to be questioned about an important event and by saying such things as, "Are you afraid to tell? You'll feel better once you've told". Although few children had any memory for the original event from four years earlier, their performance on the suggestive abuse questions was mixed. Five out of the fifteen children incorrectly agreed with the interviewer's suggestive question that they had been hugged or kissed by the confederate, two of the fifteen agreed that they had their picture taken in the bathroom, and one child agreed that she or he had been given a bath. The important conclusion of this study is that children may begin to give incorrect information to misleading questions about events for which they have no memory, when the interviewer creates an aura (emotional tone) of accusation.
There are many other studies in the social science literature to show that reinforcing children for certain behaviors regardless of the quality of the behaviors also increases the frequency of these types of behaviors. Telling children "you are a really good boy" is one of example of this. In some situation, when used appropriately, these types of supportive statements make children feel at ease and make children more responsive and accurate than when they are provided with no feedback or support (e.g., . Goodman, Rudy, Bottoms, & Aman, 1990). However, if used inappropriately, these types of statements can also produce inaccurate statements. Thus, it has also been found that when interviewers are overly supportive of children, then children tend to produce many inaccurate as well as many accurate details (e.g., Geiselman, Saywitz & Bornstein, 1990). Certainly, there appears to be some trade-off in the effect of positive and neutral support on the accuracy of children's reports.
Although the quality and quantity of positive support and reinforcement provided in many of the research studies exemplify good interviewing techniques, ones that most interviewers would use, the types of "encouraging" statements made by some of Wee Care children's investigators would never be considered as acceptable examples of how children should be encouraged in an interview:
McGrath: Do you want to sit on my lap? Come here. I am so proud of you. I love big girls like you that tell me what happened -- that aren't afraid because I am here to protect you. Did you ever see what's this right here?...You got such pretty eyes. You are going to grow to be a beautiful young lady. I'm jealous, I'm too old for you.
Detective McGrath rationalized this behavior by saying "this way she may feel more comfortable and more at ease." However, these statements may have far greater consequences; they may change the balance of accuracy in children's reports. Threats and bribes also influence the emotional tones of interviews. However, these elements have never been systematically investigated, because it would be ethically impermissible to include such statements in research interviews with young children. But from everything we know about the principles of child development and about principles of punishment and reward, these statements should dramatically decrease the accuracy of children's statements. In the Wee Care interviews, there are numerous examples of bribes. Some children were given police badges in exchange for their incriminating statements. Sometimes the bribe took the form of promises to terminate the interviews ("Well, we can get out of here real quick if you just tell me what you told me last time we met" or, " Tell me what Kelly did to your hiney and then you can go."). Sometimes uncooperative children were explicitly threatened ("Now listen you have to behave" or, "You are acting like a baby").
The Wee Care interviewers often created an atmosphere of conspiracy and tried to enlist the children's cooperation. For example:
Your mommy tells me that you guys are interested in busting this case wide open with us, is that right? --------- That's why I need your help, especially you older kids...because you can talk better than the younger kids...and you will be helping to keep her in jail longer so that she doesn't hurt anybody. Not to mention that you'll also feel a lot better once you start. ---------
These statements on the part of the Wee Care interviewers reflect their biases and their attempts to get children to admit abuse. And as we have argued, such statements may have deleterious effects on the subsequent accuracy of young children's reports.

5. The Effects of Peer Pressure or Interaction on Children's Reports
The effects of letting children know that their friends have "already told" is a much less investigated area in the field of children's testimonial research. In addition, suggestions or misleading information may also be planted by peers. However, there are at least three relevant studies. First, Binet (1900) found that children will change their answers to be consistent with those of their peer group even when it is clear that the answer is inaccurate.
In the Pettit et al study described above, there were seven children who were absent from their classrooms when the target event (the cake falling off the piano) occurred. Yet when questioned two weeks later, six of these children indicated that they were present. One presumes that these six children gave false reports so that they would feel they were part of the same group as their friends who did participate. Importantly, this study also shows how the peer group's actual experiences in an event can contaminate non-participants reports or fabricated memories of the event.
Finally, Pynoos and Nader (1989) studied people's recollections of a sniper attack. On February 24, 1984, from a second story window across the street, a sniper shot repeated rounds of ammunition at children on an elementary school playground. Scores of children were pinned under gunfire, many were injured, and one child and passerby were killed. Roughly l0% of the student body, 113 children, were interviewed 6 to l6 weeks later. Each child was asked to freely recall the experience and then to respond to specific questions. Some of those children who were interviewed were not at the school during the shooting, including those already on the way home and those on vacation. Yet, even the non witnesses had memories: "One girl initially said that she was at the school gate nearest the sniper when the shooting began. In truth she was not only out of the line of fire, she was half a block away. A boy who had been away on vacation said that he had been on his way to the school, had seen someone lying on the ground, had heard the shots, and then turned back. In actuality, a police barricade prevented anyone from approaching the block around the school." (p. 238). One assumes that children heard about the event from their peers who were present during the sniper attack and they incorporated these reports into their own memories.
The investigators constantly told the Wee Care children that their friends had already told.
"All the other friends I talked to told me everything that happened. 29C told me. 32C told me... And now it's your turn to tell. You don't want to be left out, do you?"
-----------------------------------
"Boy, I'd hate having to tell your friends that you didn't want to help them"
Parents also told their children that they had been named as victims by other children. Child 1C finally disclosed to his mother after she had told him that others had mentioned him as a participant. The above evidence suggests that this strategy may co-opt children into making false reports.

6. The Effects of being Interviewed by Adults with High Status
Young children are sensitive to the status and power of their interviewers and as a result are especially likely to comply with the implicit and explicit agenda of such interviewers. If their account is questioned for example, children may defer to the challenges of the more senior interviewer. To some extent, it is this power differential and its recognition by the child that is one of the most important explanations for children's increased suggestibility. Children are more likely to believe adults than other children, they are more willing to go along with the wishes of adults, and to incorporate adults' beliefs into their reports. This fact has long been recognized by researchers since the turn of the century and has been demonstrated in many studies (Ceci & Bruck, 1993a for review).
The Wee Care children were interviewed by law enforcement agents or by social workers who made reference to their connection to law enforcement agents. The children were explicitly made aware of the status of their interviewers by such comments as:
"I'm a policeman, if you were a bad girl, I would punish you wouldn't I? Police can punish bad people"
-------------------------
"I'm going to introduce you to one of the men who arrested Kelly and put her in jail."
A recent study by Tobey and Goodman (1992) suggests that interviews by high status adults who make such statements may. have negative effects on the accuracy of children's reports. In their study, 4-year-olds played a game with a research assistant who was called a "baby-sitter". Eleven days later, the children returned to the laboratory. Half of the children met a police officer who said
"I am very concerned that something bad might have happened the last time that you were here. I think that the babysitter you saw here last time might have done some bad things and I am trying to find out what happened the last time you were here when you played with the babysitter. We need your help. My partner is going to come in now and ask you some questions about what happened."
A research assistant dressed-up as a police officer then questioned these children. The other children never met the police officer; they were only questioned by a neutral interviewer about what happened with the baby-sitter. When the children were asked to tell everything they could remember, the children in the police condition gave fewer accurate statements and more inaccurate statements than children in the neutral condition. Two of the 13 children in the police condition seemed to be decisively misled by the suggestion that the baby sitter had done something bad. One girl said to her mother, "I think the baby-sitter had a gun and was going to kill me." Later, in her free recall, the same child said, "That man he might try to do something bad to me....really bad, yes siree." The second child inaccurately reported his ideas of what something bad might be, by saying "I fell down, I got lost, I got hurt on my legs, and I cut my ears." Goodman (1993) summarizes these findings as follows:
"One should be concerned not only with the actual questions but also with the context of the interview. An accusatory or intimidating context leads to increased errors in children's reports (p. 15)."

Another feature of some of the Wee Care interviews was that there was often more than one adult questioner present in the interview. One might argue that this might be a safe-guard to ensure that the child tells the truth--especially if one of the adults is the child's parent. However, it also seems that additional adults merely multiply the number of questions that the child is asked about the same theme-"Tell us how you were sexually abused by Kelly". And these increased questions may increase children's willingness to defer to the adults' agenda rather than to their own memories of whether an event actually occurred.
In the following 13C is interviewed by Fonelleras (L) and Detective Mastroangelo (R)
L: What little girls did she do that to?
13C: (names a child)
L: Who?
13C: (repeats)
L: really
R: You want to show us again what she did with the fork?
L: Show us again what you just showed us
R: She put the fork where?
13C: The vagina
R: OK, whose vagina?
13C: um
R: Do you know. Who, honey?
13C: Down there.
L: OK but who's this little girl?
13C: Huh?
7. The Effects of Stereotype Inducement
As we have argued above, suggestions do not have to necessarily be in the form of an explicit (mis)leading question such as, "Show me how she touched your bottom." One component of a suggestive interview involves the induction of stereotypes. That is, if a child is repeatedly told that a person "does bad things", then the child may begin to incorporate this belief into his or her reports. As the following two studies demonstrate, stereotype induction can have a very powerful effect on children's subsequent reports.
In the first study (Lepore & Sesco, in press), children ranging in age from 4- to 6-years old played some games with a man called Dale. Dale played with some of the toys in a researcher's laboratory room and he also asked the child to help him take off his sweater. Later, an interviewer asked the child to tell her everything that happened when Dale was in the room. For half the children, the interviewer maintained a neutral stance whenever they recalled an action. For the remaining children, the interviewer re-interpreted each of the child's responses in an incriminating way by stating, "He wasn't supposed to do or say that. That was bad. What else did he do?" Thus, in this incriminating condition, a negative stereotype was induced. At the conclusion of these incriminating procedures, the children heard three misleading statements about things that had not happened ("Didn't he take off some of your clothes, too?", "Other kids have told me that he kissed them, didn't he do that to you?" and, "He touched you and he wasn't supposed to do that, was he?") All children were then asked a series of direct questions, requiring "yes" or "no" answers, about what had happened with Dale.
Children in the incriminating condition gave many more inaccurate responses to the direct yes-no questions than children in the neutral condition. Interestingly, 1/3 of the children in the incriminating condition embellished their responses to these questions, and the embellished responses were always in the direction of the incriminating suggestions. The question that elicited the most frequent embellishments was: "Did Dale ever touch other kids at the school?" Embellishments to this question included information about who Dale touched (e.g., "He touched Jason, he touched Tori, and he touched Molly."), where he touched them (e.g., "He touched them on their legs."), how he touched them (e.g., "....and some he kissed....on the lips"), and how he took their clothes off ("Yes, my shoes and my socks and my pants. But not my shirt."). When they were re-interviewed one week later, children in the incriminating condition continued to answer the yes/no questions inaccurately and they continued to embellish their answers.
The second study also demonstrates the powerful effects of stereotype inductions especially when these are paired with repeated suggestive questioning. A stranger named Sam Stone paid a two-minute visit to preschoolers (aged 3 to 6 years) in their daycare center (see Leichtman & Ceci, in press). Following Sam Stone's visit, the children were asked for details about the visit on 4 different occasions over a 10-week period. During these 4 occasions, the interviewer refrained from using suggestive questions. She simply encouraged children to describe Sam Stone's visit in as much detail as possible. One month following the fourth interview, the children were interviewed a fifth time, by a new interviewer who asked about two "non-events" which involved Sam doing something to a teddy bear and a book. In reality, Sam Stone never touched either one. When asked in the fifth interview: "Did Sam Stone do anything to a book or a teddy bear?" most children rightfully replied "No." Only 10% of the youngest (3 to 4-year- old) children's answers contained claims that Sam Stone did anything to a book or teddy bear. When asked if they actually saw him do anything to the book or teddy bear, as opposed to "thinking they saw him do something," or" hearing he did something," now only 5% of their answers contained claims that anything occurred. Finally, when these 5% were gently challenged ("You didn't really see him do anything to the book/the teddy bear, did you?") only 2.5% still insisted on the reality of the fictional event. None of the older (5 to 6-year-old) children claimed to have actually seen Sam Stone do either of the fictional events.
A second group of preschoolers were presented with a stereotype of Sam Stone before he ever visited their school. Each week, beginning a month prior to Sam Stone's visit, these children were told a new Sam Stone story, in which he was depicted as very clumsy. For example:
You'll never guess who visited me last night. [pause] That's right. Sam Stone! And guess what he did this time? He asked to borrow my Barbie and when he was carrying her down the stairs, he tripped and fell and broke her arm. That Sam Stone is always getting into accidents and breaking things!
Following Sam Stone's visit, these children were given 4 suggestive interviews over a ten-week period. Each suggestive interview contained two erroneous suggestions, one having to do with ripping a book and the other with soiling a teddy bear (e.g., "Remember that time Sam Stone visited your classroom and spilled chocolate on that white teddy bear? Did he do it on purpose or was it an accident?" and "When Sam Stone ripped that book, was he being silly or was he angry?"). Ten weeks later, when a new interviewer probed about these events ("Did anything happen to a book?" "Did anything happen to a teddy bear?"), 72% of the youngest preschoolers claimed that Sam Stone did one or both misdeeds, a figure that dropped to 44% when asked if they actually saw him do these things. Importantly, 21% continued to insist that they saw him do these things, even when gently challenged. The older preschoolers, though more accurate, still included some children (11%) who insisted they saw him do the misdeeds.
Stereotype induction was rampant in the initial Wee Care interviews. The interviewers explicitly repeated in various interviews that Kelly was bad. Based on analyses of the existing interviews, the investigator told 15 of the 34 interviewed children that Kelly was in jail because she had done bad things. The investigators told the children that they needed their help to keep Kelly in jail. The investigators also promoted fear by asking leading questions about whether Kelly had threatened them or their families if they were to tell on her. Sometimes the investigators suggested that she had claimed to have supernatural powers ("Kelly said a lot of things to some kids and I think that she might have said them to you too, like she had some special powers like she can come through a wall and she could lift our bed and stuff like that..."). The investigators constantly told the children that they were now safe and could talk because Kelly was in jail.
It is interesting that despite these statements that pervaded the interviews, in the early interviews at least, the children did not completely incorporate the suggested stereotypes of Kelly. Sixteen of the 34 children never said they were afraid of her and the remaining children never volunteered that information. Some children claimed that Kelly was bad, but these claims were never completely justified by the children. For example, in one of the few examples we have of two transcribed interviews for the same child, we see that in the first of the transcribed interviews (but not the first interview) the child is repeatedly asked about bad things that Kelly did. She denies that Kelly did anything bad to her. In the next (transcribed) interview, the following exchange takes place:
Q: Was Kelly a good girl or a bad girl?
A: She was a bad girl.
Q: She was a bad girl. Were there any other teachers who were bad?
A: No
Q: Kelly was the only bad girl? What did Kelly do that made her a bad girl?
A: She readed
Q: She what?
A: She readed and she came to me and I said no, no, no.
Q: Did she hurt you?
A: I hurted her.
Q: How did you hurt her?
A: Because I didn't want to write and she write and I said no, no, no, no and I hit her.
When other children made statements that Kelly was bad, it is impossible to tell whether these statements reflect the fact that Kelly actually did bad things or whether these reports reflect the children's adoption of the interviewers' suggested stereotypes of Kelly, an indeterminacy exacerbated by the general absence of recorded initial interviews.
8. The Use of Anatomically Detailed Dolls
Anatomically detailed dolls are frequently used by professionals, including child therapists, police, child protection workers, and attorneys, when interviewing children about suspected sexual abuse. They were used repeatedly in the interviews with the Wee Care children. One rationale for the use of anatomical dolls is that they allow children to manipulate objects reminiscent of a critical event, thereby cuing recall and overcoming language and memory problems. Another rationale is that their use is thought to overcome motivational problems of embarrassment and shyness. The dolls have also been used as projective tests. Some professionals claim that if a child actively avoids these dolls, shows distress if they are undressed, or shows unusual preoccupation with their genitalia, this is consistent with the hypothesis that the child has been abused (see Mason, 1991). The use of anatomically detailed dolls has raised scepticism, however, among researchers and professionals alike. Two related arguments are frequently invoked against their use. The first is that the dolls are suggestive, that they encourage the child to engage in sexual play even if the child has not been sexually abused (e.g., Gardner, 1989; Terr, 1988). A child, for instance, may insert a finger into a doll's genitalia simply because of its novelty or "affordance," much the way a child may insert a finger into the hole of a doughnut. Another criticism is that it is impossible to make firm judgments about children's abuse status on the basis of their doll play because there are no normative data on nonabused children's doll play. Over the past several years, researchers have conducted a number of studies to address these concerns.
In several studies, researchers have compared the doll play of children suspected of having been sexually abused with children not suspected of having been abused. In addition, there have been a score of studies examining the doll play of non-abused children. Reviews of this literature (Berry & Skinner, 1993; Ceci & Bruck, 1993a; Wolfner, Faust, & Dawes, 1993) indicate that many of the studies are methodologically inadequate and do not allow for firm interpretations about the potential usefulness or risks of using dolls. Furthermore, other data indicate that some of the play patterns thought to be characteristic of abused children, such as playing with the dolls in a suggestive or explicit sexual manner, or showing reticence or avoidance when presented with the dolls, also occur in samples of nonabused children.
More recent studies have focused on how accurately young preschoolers use dolls to represent themselves. For example, DeLoache (1993) used dolls to interview 2.5-, 3-, and 4-year-old children about a play session they had had with a male experimenter. The dolls did not help the children report their experiences. The younger children in particular gave fuller and more accurate accounts of where they had been touched without the dolls than they did with the dolls. When asked to place stickers on the doll in the same places that stickers had been placed on their own bodies, the younger children were not very successful. Indeed, many of the children did not seem to realize that they were supposed to treat the doll as a representation of themselves. Further, several children in this and a subsequent on-going study rejected the suggestion that they "pretend that this doll is you." This last finding is important, since a reluctance to play with dolls in forensic or therapeutic interview sessions is often taken as a possible indicant of abuse. Generally these results indicate that very young children may not have the cognitive sophistication to use a doll to represent their own experiences. Hence, the use of dolls may actually impede or distort, rather than facilitate and clarify, their ability to provide accurate testimony.
Two studies have examined how accurately non-abused children use the dolls to show how they were touched during a pediatric visit. In both studies, half the children received genital examinations and half did not. If the dolls provide children with a tool that will allow them to overcome their shyness, and embarrassment concerning sexual matters, then reports of genital touching should be more accurate when children are allowed to re-enact events with the dolls. The results of both studies fail to support this hypothesis. The first study included 5- and 7-year old girls (Saywitz, Goodman, Nicholas & Moan, 1991). When the children were asked for a verbal report of their genital examination, 78% of the children who had received a genital examination failed to disclose genital touching. When given the opportunity to provide the same information with the dolls ("Show me with the dolls what happened"), 83% of these children failed to disclose genital touching. However, when the experimenter pointed to either the genitalia or buttocks of the doll and asked a direct question, "Did the doctor touch you here?", only 22% of the responses were incorrect denials. Children who did not receive a genital examination never made a false report in the verbal free recall or doll enactment conditions. However, when the experimenter pointed to the genital or anal region of the doll and asked, "Did the doctor touch you here?", 9% of these children inaccurately claimed that they had been touched. These results indicate that regardless of interviewing technique, 5- and 7- year old children rarely make false reports about genital touching. These data also indicate that the dolls do not assist the children to divulge potentially embarrassing material, unless the interviewer uses highly directive questioning. As the next study shows, however, a very different pattern of results is obtained for younger children.
Three-year old children visited their pediatrician for their annual check-up (Ceci & Bruck,1993b). Half the children received a genital examination where the pediatrician gently touched their buttocks and genitals. The other children were not touched in these areas. Immediately after the examination, an experimenter pointed to the genitalia or buttocks of an anatomically detailed doll and asked the child, "Did the Doctor touch you here?" Only 45% of the children who received the genital exam correctly answered yes; and only 50% of the children who did not receive a genital exam correctly answered "No" (i.e. 50% of these children falsely reported touching). When the children were simply asked to "Show on the doll" how the doctor had touched their buttocks or genitalia, accuracy did not improve. Now only 25% of the children who had received genital examinations correctly showed how the pediatrician had touched their genitals and buttocks. Accuracy decreased in part because a significant number of female subjects inserted their fingers into the anal or genital cavities of the dolls; the pediatrician never did this. Only 45% of the children who did not receive genital examinations were accurate by not showing any touching. That is 55% of the children who did not receive genital examinations falsely showed either genital or anal touching when given the dolls. Thus these data indicate that three-year-old preschool children are inaccurate when reporting how and where they were touched, even when the touching occurred five minutes prior to the interview. Children who were not touched demonstrated on the dolls that they were touched and children who were touched either refused to admit that they were touched, or at the other extreme they showed penetration when none had occurred. The use of the dolls increases this type of inaccurate reporting in three-year-old children.
The interview procedures in this study also elicited a number of other behaviors that adults might interpret as sexual. When the children were given a stethoscope and asked to show what the doctor did with it, some children incorrectly showed that he used the instrument to examine their genitals. The children were also shown a small spoon and asked whether the doctor had used it (the doctor had not used a spoon). A number of the children were inaccurate, stating that he had given them medicine with it. The children were then asked one time, "How might he use this spoon?" A small but significant number of children (18%) inserted the spoon into the genital or anal openings or hit the doll's genitals.
These "sexualized" behaviors do not reflect three-year-old children's sexual knowledge or experiences but two other factors. First, the types of questions and props used in the interviews (asking children to name body parts, including genitals, showing children anatomically detailed dolls and asking children to manipulate these dolls) make the children come to think that it is not only permissible but it is expected to respond to the interviewers' questions using these same terms. Second, the children insert fingers or objects into the dolls openings for the same reasons they would insert a finger into the hole of a doughnut; it is there, it is something to manipulate. In the initial interviews with the Wee Care children, anatomically detailed dolls were shown to the children before they said anything about abuse in 24 of the 39 interviews. Most of the leading and suggestive aspects of the transcribed interviews involve the interviewers' interactions with the dolls and their asking children sexualized questions in the contexts of the demonstrations with the dolls. In 17 of the 39 sessions silverware was given to the children with dolls. The children were asked such questions as:
Interviewer: Did Kelly ever do anything to you with a knife that hurt you ?
Child: No.
Interviewer: Did she ever do bad things or hurt you with a spoon?
Child: No.
Interviewer: Did she ever do bad things or hurt you with a knife?
Child: No.
Interviewer: Okay. What about a wooden spoon?
Child: No.
Children were asked to speculate about how silverware could have been used.
Interviewer: Why don't you show me how you think a little girl can be hurt by the fork?
And
Interviewer: Why don't you show me what Kelly did with the big wooden spoon.
Often, as shown above, the children resisted these suggestions, but sometimes after much repetition, the children responded by poking the silverware into the genitalia or buttocks of the doll:
Interviewer: Can you think of a way somebody might have used this to hurt little girls?
Child: (indicates the tummy)
Interviewer: Where else do you think a little girl could have gotten hurt with a wooden spoon?
Child: The belly button.
Interviewer: Where else do you think a little girl might get hit with a wooden spoon? How do you think Kelly used this fork to hurt little girls?
Child: Belly button.
Interviewer: Where else?
(finally after many more persistent questions)
Child: Bottom.
Researchers Bruck & Ceci, were much more successful than the Wee Care interviewers in eliciting sexualized reports from children when they were first asked how one might use a spoon! Remember, the three-year-old children in the Bruck and Ceci study were only asked one time about how a spoon might be used. There are difficulties in drawing parallels between the behaviors of children in research studies and the behaviors of children in actual forensic contexts or clinical settings. Transcripts of some of these sessions with children suspected of having been sexually abused reveal the following practices by interviewers: naming the dolls after defendants (In 12 of the transcribed interviews, Wee Care investigators named a doll Kelly rather than allowing the child to do so); berating the dolls for alleged abuses against the child (e.g., shaking a finger at the male doll who has been named after the defendant, and yelling: "You are naughty for hurting Jennifer!"); assuming the role of fantasy characters in doll play; creating a persistent atmosphere of accusation; and asking a stream of suggestive questions that reflect the sexual knowledge of the adult interviewer . Non-abused children in research studies were never subjected to such highly suggestive experiences; they were never given prior motivation to play with the dolls suggestively or aggressively. If they had been, it is possible that their play with the dolls would contain many explicit sexual events, reflecting prior interviewing techniques rather than sexual abuse.
Because the initial interviews with the Wee Care children were not recorded, we cannot determine how Wee Care children were first interviewed with the dolls and how they responded to their introduction. But we do know from comments in the later transcribed interviews that children had interacted with the dolls on previous occasions. This raises the issue of whether any sexualized behavior or sexualized reports in the transcribed interviews reflects the children's prior exposure to the dolls rather than their attempt to demonstrate how they were sexually abused. That is, the dolls may serve as a nonverbal suggestive device which promotes subsequent sexualized play and sexualized verbalizations, none of which are accurate indicators of past abuse. These concerns are raised by the behavior of one non-abused child who served as a pilot subject in a study of young children's interactions with anatomically detailed dolls (described in Ceci, in press and Ceci & Bruck1993b). A three-and-a-half year old non-abused girl was examined by a pediatrician. She was not given a genital examination. Immediately after the examination, when interviewed by the experimenter, she correctly said that the doctor had not touched her genitals or buttocks. Furthermore, when shown an anatomically detailed doll and told to show how the doctor had touched her genitals and buttocks, she correctly stated that he had not touched her. Three days later, the same child was given an anatomically detailed doll and asked to show all the things that the doctor had done in her previous visit. This time, she inserted a stick into the vagina of the doll and said that this had happened at the doctor's office. However, upon further questioning, she said that the doctor did not do this. Three days later, the child was asked to use the anatomically detailed doll and to show her father everything that had happened at the examination. This time, she hammered a stick into the doll's vagina and then inserted a toy earscope into the doll's anus. When asked if this really happened, she said "Yes it did." When her father and the experimenter both tried to debrief her with such statements as, "Your doctor doesn't do those things to little girls. You were just fooling. We know he didn't do those things", the three-year-old tenaciously clung to her prior claims that she had just demonstrated on the doll (a videotape of this child's doll play is enclosed with the brief. maybe). Thus, repeated exposure to the doll, with minimal suggestions, resulted in highly sexualized play for this one 3-year-old subject. Although this pilot observation calls for more systematic research on the influence of repeated exposure to anatomically detailed dolls in interviews with sexual themes, the dramatic and startling results of this one subject demonstrates vividly the potential suggestiveness of anatomical dolls with non-abused 3-year-olds.
Wolfner and his colleagues (993) concluded their recent review article on the use of anatomical dolls with the following statement:
evidence available that would justify clinical or forensic diagnosis of abuse on the basis of the dolls. The common counter is that such play is "just one component" in reaching such a diagnosis based on a "full clinical" picture....[Doll] play cannot be validly used as a component, however, unless it provides incremental validity and there is virtually no evidence that it does."(Wolfner, et al., p. 9).
Since this statement was written, we now have data on three-year-old children's interactions with anatomically detailed dolls (Ceci & Bruck, described above). If replicated, these data would appear to suggest that dolls ought not be used in interviews with young children, as their use promotes sexualized behavior and false reports in non-abused children.
9. Less Invasive Methods Source Attribution Errors
In the previous sections, we have presented some of the elements of interviews that may produce inaccurate reporting. To a large extent, these elements are quite salient; their presence can be easily isolated in recorded interviews. Some authors of this brief have recently conducted three different types of studies that illustrate how suggestions that are delivered in a much milder and less detectible manner can also have repercussions on children's memories and reports. These three studies focus on the theoretical construct of "source attribution error". This refers to the problems that both children and adults have in separating the sources of their memories. In some cases, this may be particularly problematic for some children. For example, 6- and 9- year-old children make more errors than adults when discriminating between actions they performed and actions they merely imagined themselves performing (Foley & Johnson, 1985). When asked to remember which of two people said what, preschool children have a more difficult time than adults, if the two people speaking share similar physical characteristics (Foley & Johnson, 1985; Lindsay, Johnson, & Kwon, 1991).
Zaragoza and her colleagues (Ackil & Zaragoza, 1993) have used some of these same techniques to explore the basis of children's suggestibility. In these experiments, subjects viewed a videotape, after which the experimenter read them a summary of the video which contained events that were part of the video as well as events that were not part of the video. Sometime later, subjects were given a surprise memory test; here they were read a list of events and asked to say whether they remembered seeing the event on the video, or hearing the event from the summary, or both. The youngest children (6-year-olds) were most prone to confusing actually viewed with suggested (heard) events. These findings suggest that suggestibility effects reflect young children's susceptibility to serious memory errors, namely the tendency to believe they remembered seeing details that were only suggested to them. The next two experiments take this paradigm closer to the field of children's testimony in the forensic context.
In the following experiment, Poole and Lindsay (unpublished) demonstrated how source attribution errors may occur through subtle interventions, such as parents reading a book to their child. In this study, preschoolers played with "Mr. Science" for 16 minutes in a university laboratory. During that time the child participated in four demonstrations (e.g, lifting cans with pulleys). Four months later, the parents were mailed a story book which was specially constructed for each child. It contained a biographical description of their child's visit to Mr. Science. However, not all of the information was accurate; the story described two of the experiments that the child had seen and it also described two that the child had not seen. Furthermore, each story finished with the following fabricated account of what happened when it was time to leave the laboratory, "Mr Science wiped (child's name) hands and face with a wet-wipe. The cloth got close to (child's name) mouth and tasted really yuckie."
The parents read the story to their children three times. These young children were very susceptible to source attribution errors. When later interviewed by the experimenters, the children reported that they had participated in demonstrations which had only been mentioned in the stories read to them by their parents. When asked whether Mr. Science put anything "yuckie" in their mouths, more than half of the children inaccurately replied "yes", and these children elaborated their "yes" answers. Moreover, inaccurate reports of having something "yuckie" put in their mouths increased on repeated questioning; when asked, "Did Mr. Science put something yuckie in your mouth or did your Mom just read you this in a story?", now 71% of the children said that it really happened. This study demonstrates how very subtle suggestions can influence children's inaccurate reporting of non-events which can have a sexual interpretation. The next study, conducted by Ceci and his colleagues (Ceci, Crotteau, Smith & Loftus, in press) was designed to pursue the question of whether preschoolers exhibit source misattributions when they are repeatedly encouraged to think about events that never occurred. Each week for 10 consecutive weeks, an interviewer asked preschoolers to think about both actual events that they had experienced in their distant past (e.g., an accident that eventuated in stitches) and fictitious events that they had never experienced (e.g., getting their hand caught in a mousetrap and having to go to the hospital to get it removed; seeing an alligator on a bus with an apple in its mouth). Each of these events and non-events was wri=06 on a separate card. The child selected a card, the interviewer would read it aloud, and then ask if the event ever happened. For example, when the child selected the card that read: "Got finger caught in a mousetrap and had to go to the hospital to get the trap off", the interviewer would ask: "Think real hard, and tell me if this ever happened to you. Can you remember going to the hospital with the mousetrap on your finger?" (This study will be henceforth referred to as "The Mousetrap Study".)
After 10 weeks of thinking about both real and fictitious events, these preschool children were interviewed by a second interviewer. Initially, the interviewer asked: "Tell me if this ever happened to you: Did you ever get your finger caught in a mousetrap and have to go to the hospital to get the trap off?" Following the child=D5s reply, the interviewer asked for additional details (e.g., "Can you tell me more?").
When exposed to these very mild manipulations, 58% of the preschool children produced false narratives to one or more of these fictitious events; 25% produced false narratives to the majority of them. Furthermore, the children's reports did not solely contain one word responses; their narratives contained elaborated and embellished descriptions of events that never occurred. Some accounts were internally coherent, containing not only details and sequences of events that never occurred but also containing descriptions of the child's affect during these non-events (see enclosed videotape, maybe).
MAKE THIS WHOLE PARAGRAPH A FOOTNOTE: It should be noted that subsequent work with same paradigm indicates that the same quality of false report can be produced in half the time as the original experiment. Furthermore, similar patterns of results have been recently reported for adult subjects (e.g., Hyman et al., 1993; Loftus, 1993). END OF FOOTNOTE.
These data indicate that children can come to make false reports about non-occurring events, even ostensibly painful bodily events, when suggestions are mildly made in the course of a conversation or a story-telling activity. If children are repeatedly asked by investigators, therapists, and parents to try to remember "how someone touched you" or "if someone touched your vagina", will children eventually come to make statements that they had been sexually abused, when abuse had never taken place? Furthermore, when parents or therapists read books with abuse themes to children, do children come to believe what happened in the book actually happened to them? (For example, Dr. Susan Esquilin read Where the Wild Things Are to some the the Wee Care children. One of the pictures contains a monster with a fork running after a child. After reading this book, some children began reporting abuse with utensils. ROBERT IS THIS CORRECT??) There are no data on these important issues. However, the results of the studies that we have just reviewed provide a theoretical and empirical framework for suspecting that such activities lead to significant source misattributions.
Summary
We have presented a number of features that, when present in interviews or interactions with young children, may greatly compromise the accuracy of their reports. These factors include: biased beliefs of the interviewer, the use of repeated questions, the repetition of misleading information, the use of rewards, bribes, and threats. children's reports are at risk for being tainted if they are interviewed by an intimidating adult, such as a police office. Other important factors that contribute to children's unreliable reports include the use of peer pressure, the use of anatomically detailed dolls, and stereotype induction. Finally, some very recent evidence indicates that merely asking children to repeatedly think about whether an event occurred may have a profound negative effect on their subsequent memories. These features characterize many of the interviews of the Wee Care children. The following excerpted interview, along with our annotated comments, summarizes many of the points made in this section. The interviewer, an experienced social worker, is denoted I, and he is interviewing one child, denoted C. Occasionally a police detective (P) joins the interview.
I: We have gotten a lot of other kids to help us since I last saw you.
C: No. I don't have to.
I: Oh come on. Did we tell you she is in jail?
C: Yes. My mother already told me.
Comment: It is obvious that this interviewer was not neutral regarding the defendant's guilt, insinuating that because she is now jail he need not be afraid of he r, although it is not clear that this child was ever afraid. Also note the use of peer pressure.
I: Well, we can get out of here real quick if you just tell me what you told me last time.
Comment: There is no desire on the part of this interviewer to test an alternative hypothesis; rather he desires the child to reaffirm on tape what he said in an earlier interview through the use of a bribe.
C: I forgot.
I: No you didn't, I know you didn't.
C: I did, I did.
I: No, come on.
C: I forgot.
I: I thought we were friends last time.
C: I'm not your friend any more.
I: How come?
C: Because I hate you.
I: Is it because we are talking about stuff you don't want to talk about? What are you a monster now? Huh? ....
Comment: This interviewing borders on being coercive. There is little respect for the child's wish not to discuss this matter.
I: We talked to a few more of your buddies - we talked to everybody now. And everyone told me about the nap room, and the bathroom stuff, and the music room stuff, and the choir stuff, and the peanut butter stuff, and nothing surprises me any more.
Comment: Again, further evidence that no alternative hypothesis is being te sted. The interviewer essentially tells the child that his friends already told on th e defendant, and that he, the child, should do the same.
C: I hate you.
I: No you don't... You just don't like talking about this, but you don't hate me.
C: Yes, I do hate you.
I: We can finish this real fast if you just show me real fast what you showed me last time.
C: No.
I: I will let you play my tape recorder....Come on, do you want to help us out? Do you want to help us keep her in jail, huh? ...Tell me what happened to (three other children). Tell me what happened to them. Come on.....I need your help again, buddy. Come on.
C: No.
I: You told us everything once before. Do you want to undress my dolly?
I: Let's get done with this real quick so we could go to Kings to get popsicles....Did (defendant) ever tell you she could get out of jail?
Comment: The interviewer comes close to bribing the child for a disclosure, by implying that the aversive interview can be terminated as soon as the child repeats what he said earlier. Popsicles and playing with a tape recorder are offere d as rewards.
Police: She could never get out.
C: I know that.
Police: Cause I got her... She is very afraid of me. She is so scared of me.
I: She cries when she sees him (indicating the police detective) because she is so scared... What happened to (another child) with the wooden spoon? If you don't remember in words, maybe you can show me.
Comment: Note the authoritative statements of the policeman. There is no attempt to test the hypothesis that the defendant did not do what they believed she did. Instead, we see further attempts to vilify the defendant to make it more likely the chi ld will confirm their hunch about her.
C: I forgot what happened, too.
I: You remember. You told your mommy about everything, about the music room, and the nap room. And all the stuff. You want to help her stay in jail, don't you? So she doesn't bother you any more...Your mommy told me that you had a picture of yourself in your room and there was blood on your penis. Who hurt you?
C: (child names the defendant).
I: So, your penis was bleeding, oh. Your penis was bleeding. Tell me something else: was your hiney bleeding, too?
C: No.
Comment: The child never says to this investigator that his penis was bleeding. The investigator provides this misleading information to the child.
I: Did (defendant) bleed, too?
C: No.
I: Are you sure she didn't bleed?
C: Yes.... I saw her penis, too.
I: Show me on the (anatomical) doll....you saw that? Oh.
C: See doodied on me...She peed on us.
I: And did you have to pee on her at all?
C: Yeah.
I: You did? And who peed on her, you and who else?
C: (child names a male friend)
I: Didn't his penis bleed?
C: Yes.
I: It did? What made it bleed? What was she doing?
C: She was bleeding.
I: She was bleeding in her penis? Did you have to put your penis in her penis? Yes or No?
C: Yeah...And I peed in her penis.
I: What was that like? What did it feel like?
C: Like a shot.
I: Did (friend) have to put his penis in her penis, too?
C: Yes, at the same time.
I: At the same time? How did you do that?
C: We chopped our penises off.
I: So, she was bleeding in her penis and you had your penis and your friend's inside her penis.
C: At the same time.
Comment: This type of exchange is very common in these transcripts : When t he child says something that is not part of the interviewer's hypothesis (in this case, that the children chopped off their penises), the interviewer ignores it. There is no attempt to pursue it, probably out of fear that the child may embellish this claim with even more incredible claims. Furthermore, in this last section, the child finally begins to make allegations after much initial resistance. Previous research indicate s that when children want an interview to end, they often increase the quantity of false statements (Pettit et al.)
At this point the child and interviewer began discussing a stream of events in which the child alleged that the defendant urinated in his mouth and he urinated in her mouth; he and others were made to walk in her urine and slide on the classroom floor in her urine. Nowhere in this interview, or numerous others by this and other mental health professionals is there any evidence that an alternative hypothesis was being tested. Specifically, there is no attempt by this interviewer to try to get the child to assent to an incompatible hypothesis, e.g., one in which the child's pediatrician put his penis in the child's mouth, or the sheriff made him drink his urine, or that he was just teasing about the defendant bleeding. As can be seen, there is no attempt to encourage the child to deny that any of this happened. Although it is not possible to know how much of what the child is reporting is factually accurate, there is a certain suspiciousness about his disclosures -- and this is even more troubling in the interviews of some of his classmates. Partly, this is due to the heavy-handed use of coercive tactics ("If you tell me real quick, we can go get popsicles") refusal to believe that the child has forgotten or has a legitimate motive for not wanting to repeat an earlier remark he allegedly made to his mother, (e.g., the child may realize the former statement is false), but partly there is an absence of incredulity on the part of the interviewer which may reflect some interviewers' confusion between taking everything the child says seriously, vs. believing everything a child says.
To summarize, a consideration of the nature of the interviews conducted with the Wee Care children raises a possibility that their statements were in response to highly suggestive and coercive interviewing techniques. Our analyses of the transcripts of the initial interviews with the Wee Care children also reveal that despite all examples of coercive and suggestive interviewing practices, the children made relatively few accusations of sexual abuse, and when these did occur, for the most part, these were one word responses to investigator's suggestive questions. It is rare to find any elaborated account by a child even after all the suggestive interviewing practices. (An instructive exercise to support this conclusion involves reading only the child's portions of the interviews, deleting all of the interviewers' questions and comments).
B. Children's Credibility
Although children's reports may be highly influenced by a number of suggestive influences, this does not necessarily mean that the children will appear credible when they parrot interviewers' erroneous suggestions. Of particular concern is whether a juror, or a child development researcher, or a child therapist can differentiate children whose reports are accurate from those whose reports were a product of suggestive interviews. The existing evidence suggests that one cannot tell the difference between these two kinds of children. The evidence is based on some of the results from studies already discussed in this brief.
It will be recalled that in the Pettit et al study, there were seven children who were absent from the classroom when a major event occurred, and yet six of these children later reported that they were present. On closer analysis, these researchers found that the reports of three of these six absent children were indistinguishable from those of their classmates who actually did view the events.
Some researchers have opined that the presence of perceptual details in reports is one of the indicators of an actual memory, as opposed to a confabulated one (Schooler, Gerhard, & Loftus, 1986; Raskin & Yuille, 1989). However, in the Sam Stone study for example, the presence of perceptual details was no assurance that the report was accurate. There was a surprising number of fabricated perceptual details that children in the combined stereotype plus suggestion condition provided to embellish the non-events (e.g, claiming that Sam Stone took the teddy bear into a bathroom and soaked it in hot water before smearing it with a crayon; claiming that there was more than one Sam Stone; claiming that they saw Sam Stone go to the corner store to buy chocolate ice cream).
It is one thing to demonstrate that children can be induced to make errors and include perceptual details in their reports, but it is another matter to show that such faulty reports are convincing to an observer, especially a highly trained one. To examine the believability of the children's reports, videotapes of their final interviews were shown to approximately 1,000 researchers and clinicians who work on children's testimonial issues (Leichtman & Ceci, in press). These researchers and clinicians were told that all the children observed Sam Stone's visit to their daycare centers. They were asked to decide which of the events reported by the children actually transpired and then to rate the overall credibility of each child.
The majority of the professionals were highly inaccurate. Experts who conduct research on the credibility of children's reports, who provide therapy to children suspected of having been abused, and who carry out law enforcement interviews with children, generally failed to detect which of the children's claims were accurate and which were not, despite being confident in their judgments. The highly credible yet inaccurate reports obtained from the children may have resulted from a combination of repeated interviews with persistent and intense suggestions that built on a set of prior stereotypes. Similarly, it may become difficult to separate credibility from accuracy when these children, after repeated interviews, give a formal video-taped interview or testify in court.
Similar results were obtained when psychologists who specialize in interviewing children were shown videotapes of the children in the Mousetrap study (Ceci, in press). Recall that these children had been simply asked to repeatedly think about whether a fictitious or real event had actually happened. Again, professionals could not reliably detect which of the events in the children's narratives were real and which were not. One reason for their difficulty may be that they cannot imagine such plausible, internally coherent narratives being fabricated. In addition, the children exhibited none of the tell-tale signs of duping, teasing, or tricking. They seemed sincere, their facial expressions and affect were appropriate, and their narratives were filled with the kind of low-frequency details that make accounts seem plausible, as shown in the following account:
My brother Colin was trying to get Blowtorch (an action figure) from me, and I wouldn't let him take it from me, so he pushed me into the wood pile where the the mousetrap was. And then my finger got caught in it. And then we went to the hospital, and my mommy, daddy, and Colin drove me there, to the hospital in our van, because it was far away. And the doctor put a bandage on this finger (indicating)
Some researchers are developing techniques that may ultimately be used to detect when children's reports are accurate and when their reports are inaccurate. These involve fine-grained analyses of the linguistic content of the statements, the gestures, voice quality, and other affective measures. However, these techniques have not yet been validated on children who have undergone repeated and highly suggestive interviews. Furthermore, even if such techniques were available, they could only be used by highly trained professionals, not by jurors, or even by specialists in child development. These techniques are being developed precisely because of the difficulty that professionals and non-professionals all share in distinguishing between children's reliable and unreliable reporting.
To summarize, when children have undergone suggestive interviewing or are exposed to some of the components of suggestive interviews, they frequently appear highly credible when they are inaccurate, even to well-trained professionals.
C. The Time-Course of Suggestibility Effects
How long-lasting are the effects of suggestions? Perhaps it could be argued that suggestive interviewing techniques change children's reports but only for a short time; and sometime after suggestive interviews have ceased, then children's reports revert to accurate accounts. Following this line of reasoning, if children's accounts of events are consistent over long periods of time even after the cessation of suggestive interviews, then these reports must be faithful versions of what actually happened to the children. This is a difficult but important issue to address. Based on some anecdotal and scientific evidence, however, we argue that misleading suggestions can indeed have long lasting effects; indeed, they can sometimes give rise to life-long illusory beliefs. The longevity of the suggestibility effects is primarily influenced by the overall strength of the suggestions. Thus the same factors that increase the risk of erroneous reports also increase the longevity of these reports and beliefs. To repeat these include such factors as: the forcefulness of the suggestions, the perceived authority of the provider of the suggestions, the use of threats and bribes, reinforcement for reports of abuse, negative reinforcement or ignoring denials, retractions, or implausible reports, creation of an accusatory atmosphere, peer pressure, and the suggestive use of anatomically detailed dolls. Further aspects of the social and mental life of the child may serve to solidify and strengthen their false reports and false beliefs long after the interviews are over. That is, if the children continue to think about the suggested events and to talk about them and to hear others around them talk about them, their beliefs in the reality of these events may solidify.
These arguments are supported by numerous anecdotes of long-lasting but erroneous memories of childhood events (e.g., see Lindsay & Read, in press). Perhaps the most famous of these involves the inaccurate memory of one of the great developmental psychologists Jean Piaget (Piaget, 1962).
"..one of my first memories would date, if it were true, from my second year. I can still see, most clearly, the following scene, in which I believed until I was about fifteen. I was sitting in my pram, which my nurse was pushing in the Champs Elysees, when a man tried to kidnap me. I was held in by the strap fastened round me while my nurse bravely tried to stand between me and the thief. She received various scratches, and I can still see vaguely those on her face..... When I was about fifteen, my parents received a letter from my former nurse...she wanted to confess her past faults, and in particular to return the watch she had been given as a reward...She had made up the whole story...I, therefore, must have heard, as a child, the account of this story, which my parents believed, and projected into the past in the form of a visual memory."
The false memories were with Piaget for at least a decade. A second piece of evidence to support the contention that some children maintain their beliefs about fabricated stories that are a product of suggestive interviews, long after the suggestions of ceased, comes from the "mousetrap" study. Several weeks after the last interview, one of the subjects who had told about his finger being caught in the mousetrap was re-interviewed. When his mother brought him to the lab, she told the experimenters that both she and her husband thought that the study was completed, and therefore two days earlier they explained to their son that the story about the mousetrap was fictitious and had never happened. She said that her son initially refused to accept this debriefing, claiming that he remembered it happening when the family lived in their former house. She and her husband continued to explain that the whole story was just in his imagination, that nothing like this ever happened. Despite the debriefing, the experimenters decided to re-interview the child. When asked if he ever got his finger caught in a mousetrap, the child stated that he remembered this happening, and he proceeded to supply a richly-detailed narrative. When the interviewer challenged him, asking him if it was not the case that his mother had already explained that this never happened, the child protested, "But it really did happen. I remember it!" While this child's insistence, in the presence of his mother, is not proof that he believed what he was saying about this fictitious event, it does suggest that he was not duping the adults for any obvious motive, given that the demand characteristics were all tilted against his claiming that he remembered this.
This child provides a vivid example of the long-last effects of suggestions. His pattern of behavior is also common in other children involved in Mousetrap studies. That is, there are also other children who hold on to their original beliefs even when their parents debrief them and tell them that the events were only imagined (Ceci, Crotteau, Smith & Loftus, in press). And, there are children who continue to say that the events occurred even when they are told right before the final memory test that the experimenter had it wrong (e.g. Ceci, Loftus, Leichtman & Bruck, in press; Lindsay, Gonzales & Eso, in press).
These data suggest that the effects of suggestions may be extremely long-lasting. Some children hold onto their beliefs long after the suggestions have terminated. Thus, if the Wee Care children's testimony was a product of suggestive interviewing techniques, then their false allegations might persist long after the interviews had terminated. It is also important to note that these suggestive interviews continued for a long time and still may be continuing to the present. That is, although the investigative interviews ceased in July of 1985, all but one of the 20 child witnesses were seen in therapy (IS THIS CORRECT? ); some may still be in therapy. The children were interviewed (and coached??) by the prosecutor's office before appearing as witnesses at trial. Each child was interviewed two to three times by Eileen Treacy before the trial; as we show below, the interviews with Treacy were more suggestive and coercive than those conducted at the beginning of the investigation.
ET: Let me ask you this; did she touch boys, did she touch girls, did she touch dogs?
3C: She touched boys and girls
ET: Did she touch them with telephones? Did she touch them with spoons? What kinda spoons?
3C: Teaspoons
ET: Can you make a mark where she hurt you? ....Make a mark. Just show me where Kelly hurt you. Then I can show that to the judge
ET: Tell me about 7C. What happened to 7C?
3C: I don't know
ET: 7C told me about some of the stuff that happened to you
3C: (no response)
ET: She cares about you. Some of the kids told me that things happened with knives at Wee Care. Do you remember anything like that?
ET: I see and did the kids want Kelly to do that peanut butter stuff?
3C: I didn't even think that there was a peanut butter
ET: Well what about licking the peanut butter?
3C: There wasn't anything about peanut butter.
--------------------
ET: (brings out dolls). Ok now what about the private areas? What happened in the private areas?
4C: I don't know
ET: That's harder to talk about?
4C: Yeah
ET: Does it make you embarrassed?
4C: I don't know
ET: Did you ever see Kelly's private spots?
4C: I am not too sure
ET: What about her boobies?
4C: I don't even really know about..
ET: There's some pictures that Sara (McArdle, the prosecutor) has
4C: What kind of pictures?
ET: Kelly like doin something to 2C and I was so surprised. What was she doing?
4C: Um, I forgot but I know she did it.
ET: She do something with a fork to 2C?
4C: Sara would know though
ET: Now when Kelly was touchin the kids with the spoons and the knives, did she touch them inside of their private spots or outside?
4C: I don't remember.
ET: Did Kelly ever put her elbow on your private spots?
4C: Um...maybe
-----------------
ROBERT CAN YOU PUT IN THE SECTION FOR 5C THAT IS SUMMARIZED ON P. 35 AT THE BOTTOM OF DAN'S SUMMARIES OF EACH CASE. IT STARTS ET LEADS LEADS LIKE CRAZY NOW.
(after some questioning, Treacy gets 6C to say that Kelly's private parts were the same as little girls)
ET: Did Kelly have hair? 6C: Nah, I know cause it's grown ups... I know about that
ET: So I guess that means you saw her private parts huh? Did Kelly ask the kids to look at her private parts, or to kiss her private part or..
6C: I didn't really do that....I didn't even do it..
ET: But she made you
6C: She made me. She made me .. But I couldn't do it...So I didn't even really do it. I didn't do it.
ET: Did it smell good?
6C: shhh
ET: Her private parts?
6C: I don't know
ET: Did it taste good? Did it taste like chocolate?
6C: Ha, ha. No, I didn't even do it.
ET: You Wee Care kids seem so scared of her
6C: I wasn't. I'm not even.
ET: But while you were there, were you real scared?
6C: I don't know
ET: What was so frightening about her, 6C, what was so scary about her?
6C: I don't know. Why don't you ask her?
ET: Did she drink the pee pee?
6C: Please that sounds just crazy. I don't remember about that. Really don't.
In addition to the suggestions provided by mental health and forensic professionals, it is possible that the parents of these children continue to subtly suggest Kelly's guilt to these children. Thus if Wee Care children indeed continue to report past incidents of sexual abuse, it is possible that these reports reflect the long-lasting effects of much earlier suggestions, or that these reports reflect the effects of past and current suggestions which have been maintained over the period of years (1985-to the present). If the children were not abused, the beliefs of the legal authorities, the therapists, and the parents may provide a permanent architecture of suggestion to maintain the children's false allegations and beliefs. In other words, living in an environment where the primary belief is that "Kelly abused children" provides a constant source of suggestion to these children; as a result these children's reports and beliefs may be permanently tainted....
E. How To Obtain Reliable Reports From Children
Some critics may argue that this brief contains a biased presentation of the literature; that there are a number of studies that show that children are not suggestible, or that they are no more suggestible than adults. It is true that we have focused on those studies that emphasize the weaknesses of children's memories, because the conditions in those studies have the most relevance to the interviewing conditions of the Wee Care children. Other studies that emphasize the strengths of young children's memories (e.g, see Goodman, Batterman-Faunce & Kenney, 1992 for a review) do not contain the same types of suggestive interviewing procedures as described above. What characterizes many such studies is the neutral tone of the interviewer, the limited use of misleading questions (for the most part, suggestions are limited to a single occasion) and the absence of the induction of any motive for the child to make a false report When such conditions are present, it is a common (although not a universal) finding that children are much more immune to suggestive influences, particularly about sexual details. Hence studies of children's strengths were not cited in the main part of this brief because the interviewing conditions of these studies do not typify those under which the Wee Care children were interviewed and therefore they have limited relevance to the issues in this case. However, there are two important implications of the studies which focus on the strength of children's reports. The first point is that although children are mainly highly accurate in studies in which they are interviewed by a neutral experimenter, asked minimal leading questions, and not given any motivation to produce distorted reports, there are nevertheless a few children in such studies who do give bizarre or sexualized answers to some leading questions. For example, in the Saywitz et al. study of children's reports of their medical examinations, one child, who never had a genital exam, falsely reported that the pediatrician had touched her buttocks and on further questioning claimed that it tickled and that the doctor used a long stick. In a study of children's recalls of their visit to a laboratory (Rudy & Goodman, 1991) one small child claimed that he had seen bones and blood in the research trailer (see Goodman et al., 1992 , for additional examples). Thus, children do occasionally make spontaneous, strange, and unfounded allegations. However, as Goodman and her colleagues point out, many of these allegations can be understood by sensibly questioning the child and parents further. Often these allegations reflect the child's source confusions or his anxieties.
One can only imagine what would have happened were these few rare spontaneous allegations followed-up in the same way as they were in the Wee Care investigations. Perhaps participating researchers and adults would have ended up being falsely accused of many heinous acts. Also one can only imagine what would have happened in the Wee Care case if the child's initial allegation that "Kelly took my temperature" was investigated with the same sensitivity and understanding that Goodman and her colleagues showed in trying to understand their subjects' bizarre statements. A second important implication of studies that emphasize the strength of children's memories is that they highlight the conditions under which children should be interviewed if one wishes to obtain reliable reports. Again, when children are interviewed by unbiased, neutral interviewers, and when leading questions are kept to a minimum, and there is the absence of threats, bribes and peer-pressure, then children's reports are less at risk for taint. It is not our intention to write a section on "good interviewing" practices in this brief. There have been several guidelines for the interviewing of children in sexual abuse cases. (e.g, White, Santilli, & Quinn, 1986; Yuille, Hunter, Joffe & Zaparniuk, 1993; also see section in the Appeal document that examines New Jersey interviewing procedures) At the most general level, all these guidelines share the following common elements. Interviewers are told to encourage the child to say as much as he or she can in his own words about what happened (Can you tell me about what happens at naptime?) Then more general questions to prompt recall are asked (Can you tell me anything else?). Following this the child might be asked more specific (not leading) questions to elaborate on the previous description (e.g., Who is in the room at naptime?; Do people do anything special at naptime?). And some interviewers advocate the use of leading questions as a last resort, if the child provides no information in the interview (Did anything scary happen at naptime? Did anyone ever touch you in a bad place at naptime?). The available Wee Care interviews indicate that interviews do not unfold in this way. Rather, after establishing some rapport with the children, the interviewers jump to specific and leading questions.
Even those researchers who emphasize the strengths of children's memories are highly critical of the interviewing tactics used with the Wee Care children:
Although there may be times when one needs to ask specific questions of children, several important caveats must be heeded. First, in actual practice, leading questions should be avoided when possible: Even if the child can maintain an accurate report, his or her and the interviewer's perceived credibility are likely to suffer. Second, there is a broad range of suggestion and coercion that can characterize an interview, and probably almost everyone would agree that some interviewers and parents go too far. Browbeating a child through repeated suggestive questioning is quite different from asking a few questions (Goodman, 1993, p. 15).

F. Missing First Interviews
The first allegation in this case was made on April 30, 1985. On May 1, 1985, the Essex County Prosecutor's office initiated an investigation: between May 2 and May 8, they interviewed five children and four parents. There are no electronic copies of these interviews. Between May 22 and July 8, 1985, Lou Fonolleras, an investigator from DYFS, conducted 82 interviews with Wee Care children and 19 interviews with their parents. None of the interviews were taped before June 19; less than half of the children's interviews and none of the parents' interviews were recorded. In addition, most of the other interviews are not recorded (1985-present). There are no recorded interviews with 16C, the child who made the initial allegation. Many of Treacy's interviews were not recorded.
The failure to have audio- or video-taped records of the initial interviews with these children makes it impossible to determine the accuracy of the children's subsequent statements. There is scanty information concerning how these children were initially questioned, and also concerning how many times they were questioned. Summaries of these missing interviews and electronic recordings of later interviews in which children do make allegations do not substitute for the missing original interviews. Written summaries of unrecorded interviews are subject to a number of distortions, especially if the interviewer is questioning a number of children and parents daily, as was the case. It is a well documented fact in the psycholinguistic literature that when asked to recall conversations, most adults may recall the gist, but they cannot recall the exact words used, nor the sequences of interactions between speakers. This linguistic information rapidly fades from memory, minutes after the interactions have occurred (see Rayner & Pollatsek, 1990, for a review).
In the case of child witnesses, it is crucial to document the details by which their reports were obtained. For example, we must know whether and how often the interviewer asked the child leading questions. We most know whether the interviewer prodded the child's reports with the use of anatomically detailed dolls, etc. We also must know the verbatim statements and questions of the interviewer as well as the verbatim responses of the children. Because this verbatim information fades most rapidly from memory (within a matter of minutes), it is crucial that it be electronically recorded. Without this information, one cannot begin to evaluate the reliability of the children's allegations. It is also the case, that the gist of previous interviews may be inaccurately summarized in later reports due to certain biases or misperceptions of the interviewer. If the investigator has a bias that the child was sexually abused, then this can color his interpretations of what the child said or did; and it is this interpretation that appears in the summary rather than a factual account of what transpired. Finally, although there are some examples of taped interviews (e.g., 3C) in which there seem to be few leading questions and in which the child gives coherent reports of abuse, this is not the first interview and it is impossible to evaluate the reliability of these statements without knowing about the details of the first interview. If in the first interview, this child had been subjected to the same techniques that occur in the taped interviews, then the reliability of this child's statements would be highly suspect.
G. Generalizing from Research to the Real World
A consideration of the nature of the interviews conducted with the Wee Care children raises the possibility that their statements were in response to highly suggestive and coercive interview techniques. The social science research has documented how even subtler forms of these techniques can produce highly inaccurate reports in children. It is true that no study mirrors all of the influences operating in any particular real-world case. Indeed, many aspects of the interviewing procedures in the Wee Care case will never be examined in research studies, because researchers and their institutional review boards would deem the practices that occurred in the interviews with the Wee Care children grossly unethical, whether they be used on naive research subjects, on children suspected of sexual abuse, or on children with confirmed diagnoses of sexual abuse.
So, this brings us to the question of how much weight we should attach to the social science literature, given that no study perfectly mimics the constellation of variables observed in the Wee Care interviews. As little as 3 or 4 years ago, experts in this area would have had little empirical evidence upon which to base an opinion. However, as is clear from our review of the literature, in recent years a number of researchers across North America have conducted studies that share many of the features of the Wee Care case. This recent research indicates that suggestive interviewing procedures can lead young children to give false reports of real-life experiences which include erroneous claims about interactions involving physical contact between an adult and a child. The research also shows that very few young children would fabricate detailed claims of bizarre sexual abuse in response to one or two mildly leading questions. And, as we have seen, many of the Wee Care children initially appeared to resist repeated and forceful suggestions before capitulating to the interviewers' insinuations. The research also shows, however, that with more powerful and persistent methods of suggestion, such as those described in this brief, a substantial percentage of children can be led to make false reports of events that never occurred, including events that involve their own bodies and that would have been quite traumatic had they occurred. Based on this literature, and based on our analyses of the Wee Care interviews, it is our opinion that the constellation of factors operating in the Wee Care case would constitute an extraordinarily powerful suggestive atmosphere, one that is far stronger than those that have given rise to false reports in the research studies that we have described in this brief. Most scientists admit to being "fallibilists", that is, to recognizing that knowledge is incremental, and therefore, while we may never possess perfect knowldge about a phenomenon, we must base our inferences on the most scientifically rigorous evidence we have available. Thus, even though there is not one study that reflects all the variables that were operative in the Wee Care interviews, we do have scientifically adequate knowledge about most of these, and this knowledge leads prudent scientists to conclude that if a study did include the sum total of the variables that were operative in Wee Care, we would obtain a large numbers of erroneous reports by preschoolers. In fact, many of us believe that the available evidence is such that we anticipate even larger numbers of erroneous reports than were reported in the research reviewed earlier in this brief. In sum, although there is always some risk when generalizing from scientific studies to real world analogs, scientists believe that the best basis for doing this is to extrapolate from the corpus of research that comes closest to matching the constellation of variables that operate in the real world, even if the match is less than perfect. The alternative is to eschew insights, predictions, or hypotheses gained from systematic, controlled studies in lieu of anecdotes, personal opinions, and ideological views.
Summary
We have argued that the investigation of child sexual abuse allegations is a complex matter fraught with problems. Scientists have begun to contribute important insights to these problems, though clearly more research is needed. Regardless of the complexities of the research, the present state of scientific knowledge permits us to make the following general statements about the reliability of the testimony of the child witnesses.
1. There are reliable age effects in children's suggestibility, with preschoolers being more vulnerable than older children to a host of factors that contribute to unreliable reports.
2. Although young children are often accurate reporters, some do make mist akes --particularly when they undergo suggestive interviews; and these errors can involve not only peripheral details, but also central, predictable (i.e., scripted) events t hat involve their own bodies. It is also the case that suggestive questioning not only distorts children' s factual recall, but it also has a strong influence on their interpretation of events.
3. Measures can be taken to lessen the risk of suggestibility effects. To date, the factors that we know most about concern the nature of the interview itself--its frequency, degree of suggestiveness, and demand characteristics.
A child's report is less likely to be distorted, for example, after one interview than after several interviews (the term "interviews" here includes informal conversations between parents and child about the target events).
Interviewers who ask non-leading questions, who do not have a confirmatory bias (i.e., an attachment to a single hypothesis), and who do not repeat close-ended yes/no questions within or across interviews, are more likely to obtain accurate reports from children.
Interviewers who are patient, non-judgmental, and who do not attempt to create demand characteristics (e.g., by providing subtle rewards for certain responses) are likely to elicit the best quality reports from young children.
Thus, at one extreme we can have more confidence in a child's spontaneous statements made prior to any attempt by an adult to elicit what they suspect may be the truth. At the other extreme, we are more likely to be concerned when a child has made a statement after prolonged, repeated, suggestive interviews.
4. Finally, it is also important that the court appreciate the complexity of the interrelationships of the factors affecting children's suggestibility. As in most areas of social science, effects are rarely as straightforward as one might wish. Even though suggestibility effects may be robust, the effects are not universal. Results vary between studies and children's behavior varies within studies. Thus, even in studies with pronounced suggestibility effects, there are always some children who are highly resistant to suggestion. We have seen this in our own studies as well as in the transcripts of the Wee Care interviews: in some cases, no matter how much an interviewer may try to suggest that an event occurred, some children will consistently resist and not incorporate the interviewer's suggestion or point of view. On the other side, although suggestibility effects tend to be most dramatic after prolonged and repeated interviewing, some children incorporate suggestions quickly, even after one short interview (e.g., Clarke-Stewart, et al., 1989 ).
The authors of this brief are fully aware of the immense obstacles that face those who are charged with investigating and reporting suspected child maltreatments. In no way do we want to convey the attitude that we deny the seriousness of the problem of child sexual abuse in today's society. The focus of our research and our arguments, however, is that unless one is very careful in the interviewing procedures that one uses with young children suspected of abuse, that one may never make an accurate determination of whether or not abuse occurred. This is because there are a number of interviewing procedures that have the potential to make non-abused children look like abused children. These are the same conditions that were used in the interviews with the Wee Care children. Given our present state of scientific knowledge, there are no valid scientific tests to determine which of the children's reports were accurate. The fact that these children underwent extremely suggestive interviews makes the determination of accuracy impossible.
The authors of this brief also wish to convey their deep concern over the children in this case. Our concern is that if there were incidents of sexual abuse, the faulty interviewing procedures make it impossible to ever know who the perpetrators were and how the abuse occurred. Thus poor interviewing procedures make it difficult to detect real abuse. But we have further concerns. And these involve the interviewing techniques which we view as abusive in themselves. After reading a number of these interviews,it is difficult to believe that adults charged with the care and protection of young children would be allowed to use the vocabulary that they used in these interviews, that they would be allowed to interact with the children in such sexually explicit ways, or that they would be allowed to bully and frighten their child witnesses in such a shocking manner. No amount of evidence that sexual abuse had actually occurred could ever justify the use of these techniques especially with three- and four-year-old children. Above and beyond the great stress, intimidation, and embarrassment that many of the children so obviously suffered during the interviews, we are deeply concerned about the long-lasting harmful effects of persuading children that they have been horribly sexually and physically abused, when in fact there may have been no abuse until the interviews began. The authors of this brief will be permanently disturbed that children were interviewed in such abusive circumstances regardless of the ultimate guilt of the accused
Barbara C. Johnson, Esq.
February 1, 2007
Child abuse is a hot topic and a scary one. Parents have been terrorized by news stories of repeat offenders turned loose time and again to prey on youngsters. As a preventive measure, anxious parents closely supervise children far later into their adolescence than was true in my day. This is the hype that LL uses and ironically LL is a child abuser. To coach children is abuse.
I am concerned and want child abuse to be stopped (Including in my own family in which LL and Nancy abuse my children). Understandable, right, but what I have learned is that any parent is targeted as the major source of child abuse by a relatively new federally funded bureaucracy known as Child Protective Services.
The pedophile who catches someone else's children and abuses them is not the focus of Child Protective Services. CPS is there to save the child from its own parents.
The explosion of false allegations is partly a result of the hysteria generated by child advocates and partly a result of the fact that federal law grants immunity to those who make false allegations of child abuse. Today false allegations are widely used to obtain sole custody in divorces, as a means for the childless to grab other people's children, and as avenues for ambitious prosecutors to create political careers.
And the crazy thing is that, even realizing that the allegations in my case are absolutely false, my children have not even made a sex abuse allegation and yet that is where the KGB is taking things. They are nuts.
Now, one of my children, Hannah, is adopted. So far she has had email contact with both of her biological parents and she has seen pictures that they have sent and she has spoken on the telephone with one of them. All this has happened slowly andnaturally and it has been driven by Hannah and her emotions have been good about it all and I have been in close collaboration with Sarah and Scottie about what they say to her. With Scottie it is somehow easier. He asked me to tell him what I wanted him to say.....He is totally cool with me just telling him what he can say and I tell him to say anything good about Hannah, that he is proud of her, that he thinks she is a great girl, that he is in Iraq and he can not see her...... Sarah is very emotional but also very understanding of the situation.

February 2, 2007
I called at 7PM. LL picked up the phone. She sounds cordial enough. It has taken her three years to be this cordial. “How are you Rena?” “Oh, fine,” she says. Then I ask her about Sofia and Hannah’s day. She tells me that they had made tie dye shirts in their after school time. Then she says “here is Hannah.”
I start out by speaking with Hannah about the cold and the snow. She confirms that she had gone to school a couple of hours later yesterday but that today she had gone at the same time as usual. Then I ask her if she knew that there had been a tornado in Florida (it’s big on the news today and Florida is one of her favorite states,) and she says that she had not but is very excited to hear this. She has been through tornado watches in Louisville and understands this concept as well. “I know how it makes a tornado!” she exclaims and then she describes how the clouds swirl around and around. I ask her if she has seen tornados in the sink or in the tub and she tells me that she has. Then I ask her if she has a book she can read to me. She does and finds a book that has three stories, only she reads them to me in a rather convoluted fashion which I will now mimic in this write up, so get ready for some mind boggling work!
The first story is about a Polar Bear and a Hare. “Do you know what a hare is, Daddy?” she asks me and I respond “yes, I do, it’s a bunny rabbit.” “Yes!” she says and then she continues to read out the story: The Polar Bear lives on a hill on the north pole and life is pretty quiet until it hears a loud cry from a Hare in a hole (or something like that.) Then Hannah explains “Ok, Daddy, I am going to read you half from each story.” I guess she has become tired of this story and goes on to the next story which is called “Bounce, Tigger, Bounce!” In this story Tigger is bouncing along and causes snow to fall on Roo’s head. “Hi, little buddy!” says Tigger and then the two of them bounce in big and tiny bounces “deep into the woods.” And then the third story is called “Muddy Soup.” It is about a girl who is drinking soup out of her thermos flask in the presence of a boy called Josh. The soup is thick and dark in color and it has beans that look like wiggly worms or pebbles… “Mummm, Mud soup is delicious!” says Rosa. Josh, who is eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, is disgusted. “Did you like that Daddy?” “Yes, Hannah I love it when you read to me on the telephone.”
“Ok, then let me read to you the other story parts too!” and she continues to read that the Hare was scared by some snow but the bear told her that “everything is alright,” and then they played tag. The Hare is too fast for the bear but then the Hare is tired and falls asleep but the brave Polar Bear stays awake to protect the Hare. And then the other story has Tigger and Roo deciding to bounce up into a tree. “Can Tiggers climb trees? No, but they can bounce in them! You see, their tails get in the way when they bounce in them.” And then these two creatures are stuck in the tree and along come Kanga and Christopher Robin (and probably also Pooh) and Christopher Robin extends his coat so that Roo can jump down but Tigger has to bounce down. And then the third story continues with Rosa meeting Josh at the Park slide and going to Rosa’s house and there in the kitchen is a hot pot of wonderful soup. Rosa calls it “Mud soup,” but it sure smells good. And in the end Josh tastes it and asks why it is called mud soup? Because it looks like Mud! “Thick and dark,” says Rosa. “Mummm, Yummy!” says Josh.
Then Hannah and I speak about the tie dye shirts they had made earlier. She describes bunching up the cloth and putting rubber bands on them and then spraying them with tye dye paint. Sofia is angry about something in the background. It seems like she has a wound or a sore or something. I ask Hannah and she tells me that she has a rash on her arm. She then tells me that LL is putting Chap Stick on the rash. I tell her that this is good and “You can put chap stick on your skin but not on your eye balls.” Suddenly Hannah says “I have the most important question to ask you.”
“Yes, Hannah.”
“Did you do peepee?”
“No, Hannah.”
Hannah repeats this again saying:
“I have the most important question to ask you.”
“Yes Hannah” I repeat.
“So you did not do Peepee?”
And then Hannah says “Yes, I know.” And the next thing I know we are talking about meeting tomorrow. She wants to know where we will meet. I told her that it was going to be a cold day and that we would probably spend most of the time inside, but just in case, she should bring a jacket so that we can go outside too. Then I can hear LL making directions to both children in the background and Hannah tells me that “I think it’s Sofia’s time.”
“I love you very much,” I say “I love you too Daddy,” she says but then she tells me that Sofia is being “naughty” and it is unlikely that Sofia will speak with me. I hear Sofia say “Daddy…” and I respond “Hey? Is that my Sofia?” and she does not respond. The next thing that I know happens is that Sofia is screaming and LL comes on the phone and tells me that she “has no idea what happened.” I described to her what had happened form my end and she tells me that Sofia will call in a little while.
At 8:00 still the phone had not rung so I called. Hannah picked up the phone. I said to Hannah “Hello Hannah, this is Daddy and I was calling back to see if I could speak with Sofia because I spoke for a long time with you but I did not speak with Sofia.” Hannah then told me that she “could not go to Sofia because she was stuck in the high chair” and that “Sofia was in time out up stairs.” I inquire why Sofia is in time out and Hannah says that “it’s because she was hitting me.” “Oh?” I say “well, do you think that if I ask Mommy first if Sofia can speak with me and Mommy says yes, that you would agree to let me speak with Sofia?” “Yes,” said Hannah. But Hannah is stuck in the high chair so I ask her some questions about the stories she had read to me. “Did the bear live on the North or the South Pole? Why was the Hare scared?” Hannah answers the first few questions and then she is quiet. I say “Hannah?” three times and then she says “I was looking at Momma.” I can hear LL approaching (I hear her steps.) Hannah says to LL “sorry.” Then LL gets on the phone and says “Sofia is not talking to anyone right now because she doesn’t want to.” Hannah is obviously right in front of her and Hannah must have been cringing. I ask LL “Does that mean that I will not be able to speak with Sofia tonight?” and she says “She is in time out. And when she is ready to talk with you then she will.” I can hear a great deal of stress in LL’s voice. She explains that she has a lot of things to do and that she “can not talk with me at that point.” I have already accrued a huge understanding from Hannah and so I have gotten all that I can gallantly get from this telephone interaction and so I say “Ok, Rena, bye-bye.” She hangs up. I imagine the thoughts running through Hannah’s head as she sits in the high chair – I think she is under strict Lasky orders to sit in the high chair while Sofia is in time out, locked “upstairs.” The reason for all this hell is that LL has been trying to coach the children again to make statements to the effect that I abused them. This is why Hannah asked me about the allegations and probably why Sofia behaved as she did, knowing that LL would be pleased, that she would gain points with LL, if she refused to speak with me – apparently it is that being in Time out is better because then she is excused by all parties. What do you want to bet that tomorrow she will apologize for not being able to speak with me and tell me that she is in time out?” (That would be the third time it happens the last time was in December or November of last year.)

February 2, 2007
Dear Lorena,
What is going on with your attempts to make an appointment with LeeAnn. Please remember that I sent you an email to make an appointment without worrying about me because I will make it.
Thank you,
Allan

February 2, 2007
Dear John,
I have sad news about my job in Memphis: The school did not open. On Monday we were told to go home. The school will open, they say, in several months and we are laid off until then. The school does not have enough money to open right now and the fire marshal did not OK the buildings....
I got paid for the time I worked and I paid $550 child support and now I am now heading back to Louisville. I have not told my X.
Allan


February 2, 2007: For the second time, I send Richard a simple question. It is not surprising that Richard never responded to the email the first time – he doesn’t care. He is such a looser (professionally) that the only reason I am sending him this is so that he may experience his self.
Dear Richard,
Tomorrow you will not be present with Sofia and Hannah. Would it be possible for me to speak to Alicia, the person who is replacing you?
Allan

February 3, 2007
Today I am scheduled to spend time with my children. I am not sure that they knew this yesterday when I spoke with them. They would have brought it up? So there are two interesting aspects to our time together tomorrow. The first is that the children have been recently coached and the second is that there is going to be a completely new person – a person who is entirely ignorant of this case -- present. This new person, Alicia, will need a great deal of help if shit flies, if either Sofia or Hannah say things that are a reaction to being coached or consequent to coaching. Of course, from the solid perspective of a social scientist, I can not provide that. I can only be myself and see how the universe unfolds: Hope that Alicia calls CPS to make a complaint against LL (something plastic Richard never did although he had plenty of reasons.) Then again, maybe nothing will happen?


February 3, 2007

I arrived early at Day’s café. I called Richard to remind him that it would be nice if the person who is replacing him today and I could meet before Hannah and Sofia arrive – but I had to leave a message on his answering machine since he never picks up his phone. In fact, I believe he has picked up the phone only two times for me in the years he has been involved in the case. I am polite to Richard but it must be said that if he and I were in reversed roles and I treated him like he treats me that he would be very angry and rightly so. For example, it is a terrible fact that Richard is a liar. The numerous times that he has said that he would do something and hasn’t is fantastic. For example, he promised that he would bring copies of the reports to the zoo and didn’t. When I asked him, he shrugged his shoulders and with a smug expression on his face said “I forgot.” I am still in the blue about whether he has provided Helmers with the reports that he promised to send to Helmers weeks ago. He told me on many occasions that he supports unsupervised visits but then he told Craig Hansen that “he sees no reason for either supervised or unsupervised and so can not make a recommendation either way,” and in effect what he has tried to do is pander to all parties and has been a terrible impediment to progress. But, the list of promises he has made to me is endless and many very poignant lies.

At 2:00PM I heard my daughters! I was just then writing LL an email. LL came with them. But where was Alicia? Alicia arrived 20 minutes late! It was an opportunity for LL and I to manifest decent behavior to one another. LL could not contain herself! She bossed me around, pretending to need to protect the children and all that crap. I obliged in an Allan way, went outside looking for Alicia and then came back. I showed Hannah and Sofia how to use the computer to watch videos of themselves and then of ‘Stripes’, which kept them nicely entertained until LL spotted Alicia. I went to get her. Alicia did not care about anything: She excused herself at a distant table and pulled out her laptop and checked her email while Hannah, Sofia and I watched videos and made paper airplanes. At one point Sofia and I went outside and Alicia did not care to follow us. We stayed outside for five minutes and then returned to join Hannah who was happy watching stripes. Her favorite part was when the goose took the motorcycle to pieces.
As we walked then to a convenience store we talked about the temperature and noted that in the shade the ice had not melted but in the sun it had turned to water. Each child selected one item to buy and then I gave them the money so that they could purchase the items on their own. We made a funny video outside and then returned to the car (but we left my coffee cup on the other side of the street and picked it up on our way on.) We picked up the laptop and went to Heinebrothers café to watch the video we had just made. Hannah then become most intrigued to watch the video ‘Stripes,” and indeed she carried the laptop back to Days Coffee shop with ‘Stripes’ running. Lorena arrived fifteen minutes late and I recorded her picking up the children on video. I remember at quarter past the hour, detecting that Alicia was talking with LL on the phone but otherwise she gave no indication of care. Sofia and Hannah had already expressed many times that they did not want our time together to end and were not happy that Mommy was going to pick them up so soon… and yes, I think LL was a stressed basket case. Alicia didn’t appear to be paying attention to anything. She left even before LL and the children had gone. There is a remote possibility that she was sneakily observing us but I doubt it. I think she is a nincompoop of incredible high order. I don’t care for me but for other ‘supervisory’ roles she must suck. In a way, it is sad that she was there and did not pay attention. She would have made a good witness.
“Why are you so harsh on people?” Dawn-Michelle asked me later. “Harsh? What? after they have done to my children I am gentle.”

At 7:00PM and at 8:00PM I tried to call my children and no one answered the phone. I called Nancy’s house too and left a nice message asking that Sofia be able to call me.

February 4, 2007
I awoke with a start. Tomorrow is the first of the hearings: tomorrow is the sentencing.
9:40AM I tried to call my children at LL’s number but the phone just rang interminably.
I was never able to speak with either of my children today, I called at 7:00, 7:30 and 8:00PM.

February 5, 2007
Dear Richard,
Please continue to schedule parenting time.
Allan

February 5, 2007
My children are afraid to speak with me on the phone. This has alwaus been true but it has become much more the case recently. Hannah acted like she was in for a beating when LL approached her and asked her who she was talking to. I ended up being able to speak with both Sofia and Hannah for sixteen minutes before they had to leave for LL’a belly dancing since there was no baby sitter.
“Oh I wish I could be your baby sitter,” I said.
“Yes, Daddy, this hurts all of us.” Responded Sofia.
But the conversation went well: I started with Hannah who has recently transitioned into a new developmental phase and is now very fluid on the telephone. Sofia continues to be her usual bubbly self. Sofia looked at several Nancy Drew books on her book shelf and picked the one that is called “Mystery on Crocodile Island.” She had not managed to speak out but the first sentence when the telephone call had to be cut short.

February 6, 2007
Mediation yielded nothing.
Helmer says: “In getting ready for today I spoke at length with Lorena’s lawyer, last week I spoke with Richard, and with Leeann and I want to let you know where they are coming from and Richard says look there is nothing that would indicate to me that Allan presents any threat to the kids ticki tacky stuff that would be considered different parenting styles that I am more loose that LL is more controlling but nothing that rises I cooperate the kids love me there is no indication of any feat he is dissatisfied with LL = and her refrains of this and off the record he is very disagreeing with Dial and Crumbo and with the time that he has spent with me and the girls there are no safety concerns and I have told mason that and also that conference calling Richard into the early parts of the mediation, e very single fucking syllable form every sentence has her perspective and her perspective we all live in different mental worlds. Leeann says that we are both enormously frustrating to deal with that we can not co parent and that I have my agenda you are more overt in my dissatisfaction with other people certainly more vocal long winded, LL has her own agenda and has not been compliant and believes that there will always be problems and she believes that any order needs to be written in stone and in that it needs to be incapable of multiple, interpretations. Leeann has issues with both of us and helps not, she things she can not help us. She backs to a certain degree Dial and Crumbo.

Today: we are working bill Blackburn,
I thought it was Fitzgerald.
Both of them are strong which is I think well in mediations and I don’t really have many use for limp mediators. Today is an opportunity not to win but rather to. I can’t imagine that we will have a productive session. Because I think we need Richard at the start. I do this: especially in break out sessions. The mediator is down in the conference room and over here we are laying out ideas and counter offers, let’s talk about the trial and the ups and down s of going to trials because I need to be presented with settlement versus trial – what does it mean and the negatives. Don’t want any small talk.
Give me the agreement will need to say this is what the expectations of LL are and Allan are. If there are problems the xyz happen built in ramifications. Del;atus inherent in the system and the lack of a reasonable tie breaker, judge walker has been parenthetical in the handling of the case because she has been too slow= the option that is available to me is to have a parenting coordinator who is a proiveate judge who if no one. And Kim and Ginger

I have to move slowly
This is going to go solid.
Patience wins the day.
I am going to ask you suppress for the purposes of today. I t just doesn’t help you today. He has an ability to sway. He is not going to act as an effective advocate for you if you think that you are. “
Games people play. I am not going to be the heavy.”

Any questions?

Richard this is John Helmers I am here on the Lasky-Headrick case and I need to speak with you before the meeting so could you please call me before the meeting starts.

Helmers describes the limitless functions of the family coordinator and their function with silly home details.

My real problem with Helmers right now is that he does not care for the Judge Patti Walker Fitzgerald and indeed is blaming her for putting things on the back burner.

The bond money will come back says Helmers.

Helmers signs two documents one of which allows Kim dials crap to enter into the courts proceedings – he says there is no way we can stop it. And the other of which allows all documents of any kind and nature to enter into the custody proceedings.

I went to the DA’s office to find out about the check for 550.00 and indeed it is good and posted and all is clear and life is OK. 1:19PM Mason Trenaman appears and is escorted to the conference room where I am located and then suddenly Helmers appears and escorts him away to have a secret talk. I follow along and they are talking about bottles of alcohol. Games people play.
.
!:26PM Helmers and Trenaman are shooting the bull in the back ground and life is a stupid, pedantic and heavy hell hole. By the way, I am very disappointed with Helmers so far. He has not learned the nature of this case.

1:28 LL arrives.
“Oh Rena, how are you?”
“Just fine,” she says.
“Oh, I’m glad you are doing just fine,” I say. I know that she is a front. She looks busy in her thoughts and then says “I am actually late. I was supposed to meet him. Have you seen Maaon?”
“Yes,” I respond matter of fact and LL is already out the door with Mason and John.
1:31 Blackburn arrives, introduces himself, we shake hand, say “good to see you.”

LL is busy in her thoughts and then says “I still need to make a call to the school – make sure the kids have someone to pick them up.” Then I hear LL on the phone say “Hi Cary, I just wanted to make sure that CEP is running and that the children will be there until until the normal hour too.” And “Oh great, I just wanted to check on that.” And then when she enters the conference room I hear her say “Oh great, coffee sounds great.”

Trenaman decides the sitting arrangement. Then he talks about the snow. Lorena wants to know if we are addressing “only the visitation issue.” Trenaman says we can address anything we want. Treneman has a bullish personality and fucks things up and Helmers points this out to him.

Mediator: I want you to reach clarity but it can be hard to reach that point of clarity and the truth may hurt and bear in mind that this is not because we, myself and mason and John are here. If there is pressure it does not come from us. This is the nature of the beast.

Mason: I think it is a generally agreed upon notion that these parties are not easily going to come to any agreements during this session.
Allan: May I respond to that?
Mediator: But let me start by asking you some questions first: When did you marry?

LL: May 31, 1988 (LL provides the official date and I do not argue.)
Mediator: When did you separate?
LL: October..
Mason interrupts with some legal jargon which is pure crap and then John adds to the crap and then I say:
A: Rena was answering and I am fine with her answer so can you just let her answer?
Mediator: Yes.
LL: October 20, 2002.
Mediator: and when did you divorce?
LL: answers.
Mediator: Who brought us back here?
Helmers: Let me provide a synopsis: Divorce was litigated in Texas, A dependency issue was litigated in Kentucky after the parties had moved from South America. And then under the Uniform Child Custody Act… Fitzgerald dismisses the petitions. The important players in this case are Ricahrd Nassr, LeeAnn Gardenr, Kim Dial and Ginger Crumbo.
Mediator: Ok how many children do you have?
LL: 2
Allan: 2
Mediator: and when were they born
LL: Sofia was born, on September 10, 1998
Allan: And Hannah was born on April 23rd, 2000
Mediator: And you have seen a counseling therapist?
LL: Yes and I don’t thingk this has been useful and so it does not seem important for us to meet.
Mediator: How many times have you seen her?
LL: About six times.
Mediator: And Allan do you agree with that?
Allan: We have seen her very few times. Maybe six.
Mediator: Ok, we will listen to what ever you have to say. It may be that one of your lawyers may intercede and unless you state otherwise, I am going to assume that you are in agreement with what your lawyer states. It happens that clients then complain that something is their lawyer’s statement and they disagree with them without indicating. Also, please note that agreements are tentative until there is a complete package and so in the event that you agree on something small or do not agree, do not feel that this means that the mediation should not continue. Litigation is cost prohibitive.

And then Lorena and I start talking about something little: talking with the children on the telephone. Lorena agrees that I am to be able to speak with Sofia and Hannah three times a week but she is somewhat wishy washy about when and how long it happens and then she says that she would prefer to change it from Monday, Wednesday and Friday to Sunday, Wednesday and Friday….

LL is trying to explain the telephone conversations I have with Sofia and Hannah happen naturally and he is no hindernis to their realization. This is an absolute lie.

The mediator asks me if I agree to the three calls per week idea and I respond “At the very least we would then be subscribing to the Judge’s orders.”

LL explains that I had not been able to speak with Sofia and Hannah since Sofia had been in time out.

The mediator is frustrated with not understanding what the point of agreeing on anything is if there is no way to check on it being realized.

The mediator tries to suggest that we can communicate by emailing one another. I wish that could work! I think it is clear that this does not work because LL does not let it work. “I agreed to one email per week,” she said. She was talking about an event with Craig Hansen to which I could not possibly agree. This was two years ago!

Then Helmers interceded and tried to explain that LL accuses me of sexually abusing my children. He referred to this as the 800lb gorilla. The mediator asked LL “Do you believe that Allan seually abused the children?” and LL nodded her head. “And so you want supervised visits?” the mediator continued and LL said “yes.” I asked LL why and she said “the lie detector test.”

Mediator: For how long do you want supervision?
LL did not know how to respond so trenaman stepped in and said that the therapists would be best able to answer that question. Trenaman continued to say that the therapists believe that the children are at high risk with Allan. He then went on to say that the therapists do not want to communicate with Allan because they consider me to be unreasonable and to act inappropriately. He claimed that the therapists tried to communicate with Allan and that it didn’t work.

LL explained that she wanted to defer to the therapists because they had already threatened to call CPS on her for endangering the children by letting them be with me. What a twist! Don’t those crazy therapists realize the extent to which LL is using them? The therapists are doing LL’s work for her.

I explained that Kim Dial and Ginger Crumbo had told me that only if I lie then I can be integrated in the rehabilitation program to be with my children.

Helmers states that Richard Nassr has seen none of the risk factors and there is no fear and indeed Allan and his children have an outstanding relationship.

Trenaman steps in and says that “Allan does not like Seven Counties.”
I tell Trenaman that he should not put words into my mouth. I tell him that he had done so at the court hearing and asked him to desist. He responded like a pit bull dog on the attack: “Ok, then you like seven counties and let me write up the agreement that you will work with them and you can sign it.” I did not flinch. I said “I have tried continuously to span the dialectic chasm between myself and seven counties. I have engaged in discourse, dialog and conversation with them. Seven counties had at one point wanted me to take part in a program and I had agreed to do so but not admitting that I had abused my children. Then Seven Counties had taken back it’s offer. In the end, it is not possible to work with Seven Counties.”

The Mediator asked LL “What does Allan have to do in order to get unsupervised visits?” LL says that I have to satisfy the requirements posited by Seven Counties. How confortable for her that she has them! Lorena defers to the therapists.

Lorena went on to say that Seven Counties is changing insurance companies and it may be that….






I called Craig Hansen to let him know that nothing had evolved and to ask him if he could write something to mitigate the unilateral impact of what he had written (he has written only derogatory things about my children and me.)

I called my children and was able to speak with Sofia but then BANG the phone line was cut off after 45 minutes and I was then not able to speak any more – the phone rang interminably.
But here is a description of that telephone conversation: It started with us recalling that we had left off in the “Crocodile Mystery” Nancy Drew book but then Sofia could no longer find it and so we decided to look at other things to converse. Hannah was watching a movie called “Ghost Busters” with Mommy and Sofia took her mobile phone down stairs and we started inventing our own school. We invented a whole school with all the rules of conduct, the referrals, the teachers (Hannah was the Spanish teacher, Sofia was the Principal and the substitute teacher…) I told Sofia that I knew she was doing well in school (LL had told me that she had been admitted to the AP program) and then we calculated that a couple of dogs who have two dogs ever generation will have a family 22 dogs large by the third generation. Sofia added all the people in her family together, and then I had to help her add all the people in my side of the family together. At 7:44PM we were cut off.


February 7 2007
I went to court and waited until I was the last on the docket list. Why? Because Helmers was not there. I called three times to try and locate him and even the Judge called him but he could not be found. He literally disappeared – which is strange because I had been with him the day before and he had assured me that we would talk about the mediation hearing today as well as deal with the court issue. The Judge told me that she did not advise me to speak. I spoke anyhow. I told her that I had just come in from Texas. I told her that there was a difficult custody case taking place in the family court on the 16th.


February 7, 2007
7:00PM I called my children at LL’s. The phone rang interminably.
7:15 again the same
7:45PM LL calls me on her cell phone and it appears as an unknown number on my cell phone and she tells me that their telephone does not seem to be working and so now, finally, after (bleep) years of asking for her to use her cell phone for me to be able to speak to my children (it matters not where they are) she concedes. The telephone conversation starts with Hannah but then the cell phone is put on speaker phone and I am talking to both my children together. It is a happy conversation. I start by asking them about insect and then go on to skin issues and then… here are some of the topics that we broached:

1 Fleas, found in cracks in the floor, rugs and pet’s fur: cause small bumps that look like a hive. Often in groups where clothes fit tightly
2 Bedbugs, found in cracks of floors, walls etc and in the bedding. Cause itchy red bumps surrounded by a red blister, usually two or three in a row.
3 Fire ants, mounds in pastures and lawns, cause immediate pain and swelling.
4 Bees and wasps, flowers and shrubs and picnic areas – can leave you with a hard time breathing and spread through out the world.
5 Ticks in wooded areas: hidden in air or skin – pull out with tweezers.
6 Sunburn
7 Asbestos – until 1970’s in schools as fireproofer.
8 Carbon monoxide – exhaust from any motor that uses gasoline but not from a motor that uses electricity.
9 Global warming – because of carbon dioxide. Makes the atmosphere hotter.


Mentioned that she and I had been cut off during our last telephone conversation. She said that she had kept talking and had no idea that the telephone had been cut off. I told her that I had tried to call her back. Neither of us knew what had happened. (It must have been LL.) Sofia And then I read them a children’s story that I found on line about a bed time routine. LL cut us off and Sofia was obviously unhappy. LL has to rule like an authoritarian. Like her own mother. She can otherwise not contain the distrust and explosive nature of her daughters.

February 7, 2007
Well I went to court and Helmers never appeared so the Judge said that I had to return tomorrow. This is pretty outstanding of Helmers.

February 8, 2007
Dear Lorena,
I am emailing you because the mediator thought this was a good way to exchange information.

As you must have heard (in the Wednesday call) Sofia was not cool with the way the telephone conversation on Tuesday was cut off. I tried calling back that Tuesday and no one picked up the phone. I called right back, which means that Sofia probably was still holding the phone in her hand and yet in Tuesday's conversation she gave no indication of knowing that the telephone had been ringing. What do you conclude?

And then yesterday, I called at 7:00PM, 7:15PM and 7:30PM -- the phone rang interminably and no one picked it up. (I let it ring about 6 times and then hang it up.) Then, you called me on your cell phone and I was able to speak with my children on your speaker phone. This happened in spite of your having told LeeAnn that I could not speak with the children on your cell phone... So, I am glad that you changed your mind, but what kept you from doing so for so long? This is the first time that I speak with Sofia and Hannah with them on your cell phone. Your cell phone number came up UNKNOWN on my cell phone.

Finally, the way you terminated the telephone conversation (the three of us were having) obviously made Sofia unhappy. It was abrupt, sudden and without notice. Can you please find a better way to terminate telephone conversations? I know that Craig Hansen has given you advice on this matter.
Thank you,
Allan

February 8, 2007
I called Richard Nassr to make sure there was a plan for me to see my children this weekend. I left a message.

February 8, 2007 I got a job. I will be a janitor at an old people’s home. Now I have to find a way to live near there cheap. It is very close to Nancy’s house.

February 8, 2007
I came to Helmer’s office half an hour before the court hearing. He was at his office but he was busy. Eventually he came in and he did apologize, but it was cursory and almost insignificant. He said “I’m sorry I stood you up.” I told him it was alright and I presumed that he had obtained my note from the day before stating as much. Then he sat down and pretended to be serious: Helmers wants to know if we should have LeeAnn Gardner testify. The problem with LeeAnn is that she is friendly with the crap from the KGB. LeeAnn thinks that “Allan and LL are both very difficult people to work with” and that “we both have agenda’s.” She has insinuated both to me and told Helmers that she is partial to the ideas espoused by Kim and Ginger. Why? On the basis of what? She has NEVER seen me with the children. When I asked her she said “they are professionals.” I felt cornered. That is not fair. Anyhow, Helmers came to me and asked me if I wanted LeeAnn on the stand: These are the kinds of questions for which LeeAnn might be good.
1. Who would you say is or was more interested in meeting with you: Allan or Lorena?
2. If it is true that Allan felt that you were only 1% useful, why do you think he felt that way?
3. How many times per month or per week would Allan have wanted to have you provide therapy to the two?
4. How many times per week would LL have wanted to have ou provide therapy to the two?
5. What did Lorena state were the reasons why she wanted Allan to have supervised visits during the therapy sessions?
6. Do those reasons seem reasonable to you?
7. Does it seem reasonable to you that Allan should still be supervised?
8. Did you speak with Richard Nassr? What was the outcome of those conversations?
9. What did you experience as Allan’s greatest frustrating factor?
10. What is your understanding of the purpose you were to fulfill in meeting with Allan and Lorena?
11. Did Allan want you to meet with Sofia and Hannah?
12. Did Allan want you to observe the parenting styles of each parent?
13. Did Allan come therapists of the children?
14. Do you think that if you have been given the job of assigning custody to the children and had been able to look at all the many facets involved (including speaking with Allan’s therapist) that Allan would not have been so frustrated with you? Do you think that LL would have been more frustrated with you?
15. Did you speak with Allan’s Therapist?
16. Did you speak with the children’s therapist?
17. Did you speak with Lorena’s therapist?
18. Who else did you speak with (Richard Nassr included.)
19. And so is there anything else upon which your understanding of this case is made?
20. Thank you.
21.
I told Helmers that I would tell him if I wanted Leeann to be present at the hearing by 5PM today.

Then I went to court. I waited for Helmers and he appeared at 1:52. To the best of my mathematical abilities that calculates to be fifty two minutes late. At that point he walked by me as I was typing on the laptop and sauntered into some lawyer office. At 1:52 he wandered past me again, this time going into the court room. A minute later, when the court room door opened I saw him coming out and we made eye contact – the nature of his expression lead me to believe that he had known I was there and was looking for someone else, presumably the state prosecutor.
Finally we appeared before the Judge and I got a sentence of conditional discharge and notice of conditions. The document states that a notice of conviction is hereby entered against you for violation of KRS530.050. I am hereby sentenced to 361 days , imprisonment, however this sentence is conditionally discharged for a period of two years on condition that you comply with the conditions set out below:
1. Not commit another criminal offense. Work faithfully at suitable employment as far as possible.
2. Notify the clerk of my address and of any changes.
3. Pay child support in the sum of $150/week. The first payment is due tomorrow, Feb 9, 007
4. All payments must be made to the DA.
5. Pay $127 court costs by April 27, 2007
Then there is a bunch of signatures (mine, the judge, Helmers, the assistant Jefferson County attorney recommending sentence.)

February 8, 2007
I called LeeAnn and let her know how disappointed I was in her work. She has restricted her work (with Craig Hansen’s endorsement, she said) so much that she was not actually able to help. I told her that I had spoken with Helmers and he had told me that he did not know if it was worth the while to have LeeAnn Gardener. I told LeeAnn that it was as bad to falsely accuse and she went even farther and said that the children were in even worse shape than they would be if they had been abused, (since) they have been coached. She thought that this crime was worse than the crime of actual abuse of the children – that being to coach children, use them, for this purpose. I am grateful to LeeAnn for introducing me to thinking of LL and Nancy as being even worse than pedophyles. I called her back and left a message that I needed her to come to court.

7:00PM I call LL. Of course she had already admitted to me that the telephone at her house does not work, but I tried it anyway. Then again today is Thursday.

February 8, 2007
Dear Scottie,
Where are you? How are you? I have attached a picture of Hannah, your biological daughter. She is a great child!
Your brother All


February 8, 2007
I have been to court three times this week. I have gotten a job at the Episcopal Church/old people’s home. I understand that this is not going to be a challenging job. That I will be completely unchallenged and un-intrigued by the menial nature of the job, but it has two great qualities to it. First, it pays me money – which is better than anything else right now and I will be able to state as much in court, at the custody hearing. Helmers does not think I have a chance of getting any kind of custody at this next hearing. He is going to file a number of motions, the most important one is that the issue of child abuse can not be re-litigated. When this was filed in the Texas case, it was rejected by the Judge. I do not know what will happen this time. “You are not allowed to take two bites out of the same apple,” has not been true.
I call Kelly, do you think she can help?
I call Michelle, do you think she can help? I left messages with both.
Peter offers to help.


February 9, 2007
“Un Segundo mas de vida yo a dios le pido,” elates me.

February 9, 2007
I called my children at 7:00PM to now avail – the phone just rang, and I kept calling every fifteen minutes until the hour was over and each time the phone simply rang.

February 9, 2007

12:30 PM Richard Nassr called. He complained that LL takes her time to respond to his requests and that he still has not heard from her regarding my children and I seeing each other this week end. Richard confirmed that he had been subpoenaed and that Helmers was going to give him a courtesy call one hour before he was to appear on the stand – so that I would not be worried if he does not show up in court. I told Richard that progress in this case depends entirely on him. Regarding Alicia, “there was no finding,” he said and that seemed really sad to me because there should have been the finding of excellent parenting. Richard said the he did not think that Helmers was worried – that I should not be worried, the things will probably go my way. Sally Brenzle can interview all the parties, I have an appointment only available at 9:30AM tomorrow morning. I agree to meet at Bob Evans and Newburg Lane. “I’m in bed by 9:30PM” Richard says, and I can tell that he is afraid that LL will not respond to his request on time.

February 9, 2007
Dear Daddy,
I was sentenced today. This is what the document says:

Finally we appeared before the Judge and I got a sentence of conditional discharge and notice of conditions. The document states that a notice of conviction is hereby entered against you for violation of KRS530.050. I am hereby sentenced to 361 days , imprisonment, however this sentence is conditionally discharged for a period of two years on condition that you comply with the conditions set out below:
1. Not commit another criminal offense. Work faithfully at suitable employment as far as possible.
2. Notify the clerk of my address and of any changes.
3. Pay child support in the sum of $150/week. The first payment is due tomorrow, February 9, 2007
4. All payments must be made to the DA.
5. Pay $127 court costs by April 27, 2007

Then there is a bunch of signatures (mine, the judge, Helmers, the assistant Jefferson County attorney recommending sentence.)
The Judge also ruled that you get your bond money back.

Ok, so what does this mean? It means a few things:
1. I now have a misdemeanor on my record.
2. It may be expunged in due course.
3. The child support payments were reduced by $50/month from the last hearing.
4. I must continue to pay this until the family court hearing states otherwise and if the family court reduces the child support payments then it is retroactive to the day I went to jail. If the family court increases, it's the same thing?

The family court hearing is on the 16th I think but it might be the 13th.

I got a job today working in an Episcopal Church.
Lots of love,
Allan

February 9, 2007
Allan, Is the child support payment of $150/week or $150/month? If it is by the week, then it amounts to almost $665/month, which is more than you have had to pay before, if I am not mistaken. Also, how does this amount compare to your salary at the Episcopal Church? Please mail or fax me a copy of that court order.

Let me know what transpired at your mediation.

Do you still have the list of points to be covered at the Family Court hearing? If not, I will send it to you. There have been too many hearings at which one or two points get decided, and the rest is left up in the air. This time, please make sure you and Helmers cover all the points. I wrote to Helmers that, if he decides to write a motion in preparation for the Family Court hearing, I would be glad to make my comments.

Your Dad

February 9, 2007
Lorena has hired a bullish lawyer, Mason Trenaman.

February 10, 2007
Allan,
As I explained to you Wed when I called you on my cell phone so that you could speak to the children, my land line is not working. I am not sure if it is the line or the phone units, but probably the line.
We will call you tomorrow on my cell phone after the kids get home from their sleepover which will be at 12:00pm.
I left a message with Richard letting him know that the 9:30am time would not work.
If a slot comes open for Sunday or late Saturday, we could probably do that. Let me know if there are other options. Again, the children had this planned before Richard tentatively scheduled the am for a visit. Until late this week, there was no discussion at all about a visit. We never said and the court order never said there had to be a visit this weekend--I have just been saying yes each time asked. I still would have accommodated this weekend had the time worked out.
I am most in favor of every other weekend as is usual for divorced parents. I think it would be fine for you to do a Sat visit & a Sun visit --2 in one weekend--as long as we are on the every other weekend schedule. Think about that idea to see if you agree with it before we meet on Tuesday.
Let me know if any other times open up for visits this weekend, Lorena
February 10, 2007
Yes--we are going to trial on Tuesday. The visit tomorrow morning will not work with the children's schedule. Lorena
February 10, 2007
Dear Allan,
Sofia did not display distress at all about the Tuesday call. She only mentioned in passing that you got cut off mid-sentence. Meanwhile, you got to talk to her a good while before that happened. She mentioned it again during your Wednesday call in order to pick up where you left off. She did not sound upset to me.
I called on the cell phone because my regular land line is inoperable. I told this to you at the beginning of the call--you act like you do not know this. I do not have to explain to you why I did not use my cell phone in the past--the regular phone worked just fine. You are choosing to pick at issues rather than being happy that you got a phone call despite the phone line not working. The children were not in the least bit unhappy about getting off of the phone. They were excited and in a good mood all evening. They continued to giggle & have fun all the way to bed. They had a 5 minute warning about getting off of the phone & were quite eager to comply. I then said "one more minute" and Sofia chose to say "I gotta go daddy" and hang up right then without taking the minute.
Allan

Now how does one respond to this? I considered that both the fact that LL is preventing the children and I from meeting this weekend and the fact that she is suggesting that I get to see the children at most every fortnight and the fact that she addresses the last email to me with “Dear Allan,” (for the first time in two years?) and I also note that Sofia sounded very morose when she said “gotta go Daddy,” and the fact that she did not take the extra minute indicates the pressure that she experiences with LL about speaking with me… calls for the following response.

She may be softening, or she may have been drunk… the kids are at a sleepover and it’s Friday night and the emails she sent today she sent late at night. I got them after midnight and the third email was sent at 12:56AM!

February 10, 2007
Dear Sofia, Mommy and Hannah,
The attached ‘snoopyism’ is for you.
Lots of Love,
Daddy

The ‘snoopyism’ is in the February 2007 folder. And then, I address what needs to be taken care of in LL’s emails:

February 10, 2007
Dear Lorena,
Do you agree that Sofia did not display happiness? She was certainly sad, she sounded morose as she said "I gotta go Daddy."
Thanks for making your cell phone available. I am only stating that many telephone calls may have happened in the past if your cell phone had been available in the past -- for all the times you were not at home at the appointed time.
Please keep trying to call me if I do not pick up the phone the first time -- just in case. As you know, I do not have your number so there is no way that I can call you if (god forbid!) I miss the one call.
I believe that children need both their parents. Furthermore, in our case, the distance that has been forced on my children, calls for more frequent meetings between Sofia, Hannah and me than the once/fortnight you are suggesting.
Thank you for sending me three emails so very late last night.
Allan


.
February 10, 2007
Thanks for the follow-up Allan. I attempted to schedule this appointment well in advance of our contract goal (24 hours). On Friday, I left three messages for Lorena requesting that she confirm this appointment. She returned the call once (I was interviewing at the time) but never left a message. See you Tuesday. Richard

February 10, 2007
Richard, I left a message for you last night around 7 or 8pm. Did you get it?
Lorena Lasky
LL and Richard are at odds about whether a message was left or not. Well, who are you more likely to believe? You know, LL’s is a funny way to respond to Richard: Richard is clear about making three attempts and getting a call with no message from LL. LL then responds in a manner that seems to indicate that she did not read his email and contradicts Richard.

It’s possible that LL is somewhat schizoid. Last night I was taken by the fact that she wrote (even if in her drunkenness) ‘Dear Allan,’ and now I see that she is on her deliberate war path – a path she feels she must take to protect herself from Seven Counties? That is a new twist.

I wonder what this trip is like for someone like LL who hangs her hopes on lies and is now always trying to wiggle worm more time with protection clauses and ‘potential this that and the other’ measures? What is she hoping for? Nuts! (and evil.)

Well, do you recall that LL had stated in an email February 10, 2007 (after midnight last night) that

We will call you tomorrow on my cell phone after the kids get home from their sleepover which will be at 12:00pm.

Well, I never got that call. After waiting over an hour, I called LeeAnn and Richard to let them know that not only had my children not been able to see me this morning but their telephone interaction had been lost.

1:10PM Michelle, Justice’s mother called me. She wanted to know why I had called her and left messages asking for her help. I told her that I needed character references and preferably from a woman and a mother. She told me she would think about it and that she would call me tomorrow. This is a complicated situation for her for two reasons: The first is that she herself is caught in her own divorce, the second is that her friend Jen is close to Rebecca Lasky and has invited her to think of me as she otherwise would not.

February 10, 2007: At 1:04 Richard sent this email and I got it at 1:30PM and Richard is finally holding on:
No, Lorena, I didn't receive your message. Just as well though, I assumed you couldn't do it when I didn't hear from you. I regret that my schedule has become so limited. Richard


February 10, 2007: Farfar writes a letter to Helmers.
February 10, 2007

John H. Helmers, Jr., Esq.
Helmers Demuth & Walton

Ref. Allan Lasky-Headrick

Dear John:

After the school in Memphis for which Allan had been appointed as director failed to open for lack of funds, Allan attended a job lair last week and the best he could find was a job at an Episcopal Church, where he sweeps and mops and vacuum cleans for about $900 a month. He is required by the terms of his suspended sentence to remain employed, but his present job is no solution, either to his own need to be economically self-sustaining, much less for the need he has to contribute to the support of his children.

In Texas an attempt was made to have the judge make a finding of fact that Allan had not sexually abused his children in Paraguay, so as to enable him to take a teaching job in Texas, but that attempt failed. Lorena indicated her objection to it, and the judge made no finding of fact. I believe the present situation warrants another attempt to clear the air on this matter. As you know, Lorena (or perhaps another person acting for her) has been informing the school authorities in Louisville that Allan has committed (or is accused of having committed) sexual abuse against his daughters, with the result that Allan is unable to apply for a teaching job and that even substitute teaching, which he was able to do when he first came to Louisville, has also been blocked.

If Allan is adequately to support his children, it is necessary for him to have a teaching job or an administrative position with school, which pays a decent salary. To that end, the air must be cleared in respect of his alleged sexual abuse. Any attempt to obtain a ruling from the judge, to the effect that there is not sufficient evidence to warrant a finding that sexual abuse was committed, will be strenuously resisted by Lorena and by the therapists she has employed, but it worth a try, if only for the sake of the children. You have a “laundry list” of matters to be raised at the February 13 hearing, and Allan will update that list with the change in his employment situation. To that list, I suggest you add a request for a ruling that there is not sufficient evidence to warrant a finding to support the allegation that Allan committed sexual abuse against his daughters. Such a finding of fact may help him get a teaching job.

That issue, together with Allan’s right to be with his children without supervision, will be the main bones of contention at the hearing. Load your guns and wear your heaviest armor when you go into that battle.

Sincerely yours,

William C. Headrick

January 4, 2007
To John Helmers, Esq.

I suggest that the following matters should be dealt with at the February custody hearing. The aim of this list of points is to have a custody decree which is as complete as possible, for the present and the foreseeable future.

Lorena and Allan would retain joint custody, under the terms described below. The terms of their joint custody will be supported by the testimony of Richard Nassr and the letter of Dr. Raymond Hawkins, who evaluated Allan during eight or more sessions in the early part of 2005, which he attended in order to comply with the condition in the decree of Judge Dietz allowing him certain visitation rights. If the terms described below are not substantially granted, then Allan requests that another hearing be scheduled in six months for the purpose of reviewing the parenting situation.

1) On 4 days of the seven day week, Allan will have his children from 4PM until 8PM. If Allan and Lorena can not agree to the days of the week, then the days will be Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday.

2) On days when Allan has parenting time, the children would be picked up at Lorena’s home and returned there at the end of the visit, unless Lorena and Allan agreed on another location.

3) All parenting would be without supervision.

4) During the week, as in the past, Allan would be allowed three telephone conversations with each of the children, on any day the children do no see Allan, lasting approximately 20 minutes with each child. The conversations are to take place between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m., unless the parents agreed on a different time. The telephone calls could be initiated by either parent. Allan shall also have the right to send emails to the children. It will be the responsibility of Lorena to bring these emails to the attention of the children and to facilitate their replies.

4B) Lorena would be allowed three telephone conversations with each of the children, on any day the children are with Allan, lasting approximately 20 minutes with each child. The telephone calls could be initiated by either parent. Lorena shall also have the right to send emails to the children. It will be the responsibility of Allan to bring these emails to the attention of the children and to facilitate their replies.


5) If for any reason Allan is unable to be with the children for the amount of time allotted to him on any week or to have the prescribed telephone conversations, the time missed could, at his option, be made up on the following week or, in the case of the telephone conversations, during the following week.

5B) Same as above for Lorena.

6) Allan would have possession of the children during the second half of the school vacations. During vacations, Lorena would have the same parenting rights and telephone time with the children, and the same right to send and receive e-mails from them, as Allan enjoys during vacations. Lorena will pick up the children from Allan’s home in Louisville when it is her turn to have the children and Allan will do the same when it is his.

6A) As a fall-back position, if it appears that Allan having possession during the full vacation time would not be in the best interest of the children, Allan would have possession of the children for half of the vacation time, and Lorena for the other half of the vacation time, as determined between them by mutual agreement.

6b) At least twice during the year, while the children are on vacation, Allan will have the right to travel with the children to visit their grandparents, who live in Durham, NC. One such a visit, which would take place during the summer vacation, would last approximately one week and the other, during the winter break, may be for four days.

6c) Lorena and Allan will allow all relatives of the children to speak with the children by telephone, send and receive emails, and to send gifts and regular mail.

7) Allan and Lorena would both have the right to attend school activities and to consult with the teachers concerning the childrens’ behavior and academic work. Both Lorena and Allan shall have the right to attend the childrens’ extra-curricular activities, such as soccer, ballet or swimming. During the school semester, Lorena would be obligated to keep Allan informed of any medical problems affecting the children. Conversely, while Allan has possession of the children during vacation, he will be obligated to keep Lorena informed of any medical problems affecting the children.

8) The amount of child support, while the children are in Lorena’s possession, would be based on Allan’s net income per month. During 2007, his gross salary will be of $1000.00. From that amount must be deducted income tax, real estate tax, cost of repairs on the Austin house, Social Security contributions, and contributions to Medicare, estimated to be a total of $1,000 per month during 2007. Allan’s net disposable income would then be of $0.00 per month. His obligation to pay child support to Lorena during this year would be calculated on the basis of that figure.

9) Conversely, while Allan has possession of the children during vacations, Allan would be discharged from the obligation of paying child support and Lorena would pay child suport to Allan based on her net income from employment plus any other sources of income she might have.

10) If either parent’s employment is terminated or their salaries are modified, or if Allan’s house in Austin is vacated by the present tenant, either parent would be required immediately to notify the other, his or her attorney, and the court. At such times, Allan would pay child support to Lorena based on the percentage provided under Kentucky law. Similarly, during vacations, while Allan has possession of the children, Lorena would pay child support to Allan based on the same percentage.

11) The cost of medical insurance, to the extent not provided by the State, would be for the account of Lorena as a part of the childrens’ cost of living to which Allan would be contributing in the form of child support. Medical and dental care not covered by insurance (e.g. braces for Sofia) would be covered in equal parts by each parent.


February 10, 2007
And when I was finally able to speak with my children it was 6:20PM and the children were really excited to tell me that they had gotten some jewelry made of Sapphire which is Sofia’s birthstone and gold which is nice for Hannah. Then I asked my children from the following array of topics:

1 Kidzbop CD’s, do you have any?
2 Dakota Fanning, do you like her?
3 Do you like That's So Raven, or Hannah Montana, or Zoe 101
4 Do you enjoy solitary play - video games? TV? Reading? Dolls? Construction sets? Or crafts?
5 Do you love sports, baseball? Like Football? And basketball?
6 Do you enjoy bicycling? Skating? Swimming? What other forms of active play, though they are not as proficient at them as they will be at ten do you enjoy (Ballet? Belly Dancing?)
7 1, 2, 3, 6 which is not like the others?
8 63, 57, 98, 01 which is not like the others?
9 22, 21, 20, 19 which is not like the others?

Note: These books are arranged roughly in order of difficulty with the simplest books first.
The Dragonslayers
Bruce Coville, Katherine Coville (Illustrator), Patricia MacDonald (Editor)
What would you do if a fierce dragon were to come to your village to destroy everything you knew and loved? In The Dragonslayers, King Mildred faces that situation. Ages 8-10.
Rosa
Nikki Giovanni and Bryan Collier
Caldecott Honor. A wonderfully illustrated biography of Rosa Parks. Ages 8-10.
Mayfield Crossing
Vaunda Micheaux Nelson and Leonard Jenkins (illustrator)
A shocking depiction of prejudice and integration during the pre-civil rights era. Parents should be involved with this book.
Belva Lockwood Wins her Case
Drollene P. Brown,
Describes the struggles and triumphs of Belva Lockwood, the teacher, suffragette, lawyer, and peace activist who became the first woman to practice law before the Supreme Court and a candidate for president in 1884 and 1888. Ages 8-11.
Wildlife Rescue: The Work of Dr. Kathleen Ramsay
Jennifer Owings Dewey,
What happens to birds and animals injured in the wild? Some go to the National Wildlife Center in New Mexico, established by Dr. Kathleen Ramsay in 1985, which successfully returns 80 percent of its "patients" to natural or nearly natural environments. In four fascinating chapters, this book explores the challenges faced by Ramsay and her dedicated staff in their unusual veterinary practice.
Understood Betsy
Dorothy Canfield Fisher
This novel is about a young girl whose family teaches her that the world is a dangerous place. She begins the story as a frightened, self-doubting girl lacking in self-confidence. Due to a family illness, Betsy is sent to live with other relatives in the country. With them, Betsy builds self-confidence and self-esteem and becomes a responsible, happy little girl who knows that whatever difficulties present themselves, she will be able to deal with them. Ages 8-11.
The Ordinary Princess
"The Ordinary Princess" follows the quest of Princess Amy to make something of an ordinary life for herself, to go along with her very ordinary appearance. During which time, she meets -- and falls in love with -- a young "man-of-all-work" named Peregrine.
Pippi Longstocking
Pippi Longstocking is perhaps the world's first child superhero. Able to lift strong policemen with her bare hands! Capable of climbing tall houses and trees with virtually no effort at all! Rescuing children from burning buildings and adults from snobby talk!
The Brooklyn Bridge
Elizabeth Mann and Alan Witschonke (illustrator)
Sometimes overly technical, but a great account of the art and architecture of the Brooklyn Bridge. Ages 8-11.
To Space and Back
Sally Ride
Much has been written about the vast scientific importance of space exploration, but very little about the human side of being a member of an astronaut crew. In this book, America's first woman astronaut answers questions most frequently asked about a journey through space. Ages 8-11.
The Trouble with Tuck
Theodore Taylor
An inspiring story of a triumphant dog. Ages 8-11.
Charlotte's Web
As the story opens, eight year old farm girl Fern Arable stops her father from killing a piglet who has been labeled the runt of the litter. The little pig, whom Fern names Wilbur, becomes one of the central figures in the story. Eventually he will be befriended by Charlotte, the wise and loving spider mentioned in the book's title. Ages 8-11.
Scooter
Vera B. Williams
Set in a New York City housing project, this "series of vignettes forms a bouncy oversize novel about a girl's adjustment to her parents' divorce," wrote PW. Ages 8-11.
The Tale of Despereaux: Being the Story of a Mouse, a Princess, Some Soup, and a Spool of Thread
Kate DiCamillo and Timothy Basil Ering (illustrator)
Newbery Medal. The adventures of Desperaux Tilling, a small mouse of unusual talents, the princess that he loves, the servant girl who longs to be a princess, and a devious rat determined to bring them all to ruin. Ages 8-12.
The Birchbark House
Louise Erdrich
Omakayas is a little Native American girl living on an island in Lake Superior in 1847. Over the course of a year, an epidemic changes her view of her family forever, and she learns the truth about her heritage. Ages 8-12.
Yolanda's Genius
Carol Fenner
Newbery Honor. Yolanda is determined to convince the world of her brother's special gifts. Ages 8-12.
Confucius: The Golden Rule
Russel Freedman
Do you think you will be quoting your teacher when you grow up? Confucius was a teacher and people are still quoting him after 25 centuries!
Homesick: My Own Story
Jean Fritz
1983 Newbery Honor. The author's fictionalized version, though all the events are true, of her childhood in China in the 1920's.
Her Stories: African American Folktales, Fairy Tales, and True Tales
Virginia Hamilton, Leo Dillon (Illustrator), Diane Dillon (Illustrator)
Ms. Hamilton shows us that her extraordinary gift is for bringing, and keeping, history alive. Ages 8-12.
The Volcano Disaster
Peg Kehret
"The Volcano Disaster" is a fast-paced action adventure, set on the slopes of Mount Saint Helens just minutes before the volcano is about to erupt. Ages 8-12.
Knock at a Star: A Child's Introduction to Poetry
X. J. Kennedy
A collection of poems arranged in such categories as poems that make you smile, send messages, or share feelings; poems that contain "beats that repeat" or "word play"; and special kinds of poems such as limericks, songs, and haiku. Ages 8-12.
The View From Saturday
E.L. Konigsburg
Newbery Medal. Four students, with their own individual stories, develop a special bond and attract the attention of their teacher, a paraplegic, who chooses them to represent their sixth-grade class in the Academic Bowl competition. Ages 8-12.
Vision of Beauty: The Story of Sarah Breedlove Walker
Kathryn Lasky
The daughter of poor sharecroppers, Sarah went from working as a laundress t being one of the richest women in America.,
The Lost Flower Children
Janet Taylor Lisle and Satomi Ichikawa (illustrator)
This story blends fantasy and reality in this story of coping with death and loss.
Erie Canal: Canoeing America's Great Waterway
Peter Lourie
This is a great way to teach kids about the Erie Canal.
Every Time I Climb a Tree
David McCord, Marc Simont (Illustrator)
Twenty-five poems with short lines on such varied subjects as a lost turtle, a fence, the wind, jam, a witch, and bananas and cream.
Sparks
Graham McNamee
When Todd moves to fifth grade from his special needs class, he feels he must leave his old friends behind. Though he learns his lessons in school slowly, he quickly learns who his real friends are. Ages 8-12.
Shiloh
Phyllis Reynolds Naylor (Author), Barry Moser (Illustrator)
Newbery Medal. When he finds a lost beagle in the hills behind his West Virginia home, Marty tries to hide it from his family and the dog's real owner, a mean-spirited man known to shoot deer out of season and to mistreat his dogs. Ages 8-12.
Cut from the Same Cloth : American Women of Myth, Legend,
Robert D. San Souci, Brian Pinkney (Illustrator)
"Stories culled from the melting pot of American culture (Hawaiian, Eskimo and Native American, among others) unite a league of female folk heroes as courageous, irascible and noble as any of their more famous male counterparts," said PW. Ages 8-12.
Falling Up
Shel Silverstein
Excellent collection of entertaining poems. Ages 8-12.
CDB!
William Steig
Visual brain teasers.
Golem
David Wisniewski
Caldecott Medal. Golem is a dramatic tale of supernatural forces invoked to save an oppressed people. It also offers a thought-provoking look at the consequences of unleashing power beyond human control. The afterward discusses the legend of the golem and its roots in the history of the Jews. Ages 8-12.
All the Small Poems and Fourteen More
Valerie Worth, Natalie Babbitt (Illustrator)
This book is a great collection of poems about nature. Ages 8-12.
The Adventures of Sojourner: The Mission to Mars that Thrilled the World
Susi Trautmann Wunsch
As the one who actually got to remotely drive Sojourner on Mars, I have to say that Susi has done an outstanding job of capturing the excitement of this once in a lifetime event in space exploration. She goes into great detail about how we created the rover and lander, launched and guided them over 120 million miles to Mars and finally how we landed safely and explored the surface. The numerous illustrations and photos in the book should really make the mission come alive to young readers. The primary Mars Pathfinder Rover Driver gives this book two big thumbs up! -- Brian K. Cooper. Ages 8-12.
The Mary Celeste: An Unsolved Mystery from History
Jane Yolen (Author), Heidi Elisabet Yolen Stemple (Author),

Pictures of Hollis Woods
Patricia Reilly Giff
Newbery Honor. A troublesome twelve-year-old orphan, staying with an elderly artist who needs her, remembers the only other time she was happy in a foster home, with a family that truly seemed to care about her.
The Doll in the Garden: A Ghost Story
Mary Downing Hahn
In this book, Ashley and her mother move to a house in the suburbs to begin a new life after the death of Ashley's father. The house they move to is a portion of a larger house owned by a cranky older lady (Miss Cooper) who constantly threatens to throw them out. Ashley discovers a buried antique doll and challenges Miss Cooper's crankiness in order to return the doll to its orginal owner and learns about making peace with people who have died. Ages 8-13.
Walter Wick's Optical Tricks
Goofiness. Utter utter goofiness. Using 4" x 5 " and 8" x 10" view cameras, photographer Walter Wick has done what many would have thought was well nigh impossible. He has systematically photographed some of the world's best known optical illusions.
Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone
Rescued from the outrageous neglect of his aunt and uncle, a young boy with a great destiny proves his worth while attending Hogwarts School for Witchcraft and Wizardry.
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Dare to return to Hogwarts in Harry Potter's second adventure! The Dursleys were so mean and hideous that summer that all Harry Potter wanted was to get back to the Hogwarts School for Witchcraft and Wizardry. But just as he's packing his bags, Harry receives a warning from a strange, impish creature named Dobby who says that if Harry Potter returns to Hogwarts, disaster will strike.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Harry is now a 13-year old, and concerned mostly with classes, Quidditch (a wizard sport), and the fact that he's not allowed to visit the local wizard village of Hogsmeade with his friends on the weekends. One of the reasons for this is that Sirius Black, a convicted murderer, has broken out of Azkaban, the wizard prison, and word has it that he's out to get Harry.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Fourteen-year-old Harry Potter joins the Weasleys at the Quidditch World Cup, then enters his fourth year at Hogwarts Academy where he is mysteriously entered in an unusual contest that challenges his wizarding skills, friendships and character, amid signs that an old enemy is growing stronger.

I chatted on line with Cecilia for a very long time. We spoke a great deal about LL and my daughters. She is very supportive and hopes for the best in the courthouse on Tuesday.

I called Farmor and she confirmed with me that LL had never responded to Farfar’s email from a few months ago. Farfar told me how Farmor had presented LL with the reality that LL had undermined my ability to get a teaching job.


February 11, 2007
HOLA ALLAN, COMO ESTAS ALLAN? QUE YA NO ME ESCRIBE ALLAN CUANDO ENTRO Y VEO UN MENSAJE TUYO ESTOY MUY FELIZ PERO CUANDO NADIE SE ACUERDA DE MI ME SIENTO MUY INFELIZ ALLAN,COMO ESTA YO ESTOY MUY BIEN Y MI HERMANA YA VA TENER SU BEBE,MI HERMANO ESTA GORDO MI HERMANO RAMON, AAAAAAAAAAAALLAN QUIERO TRAERLE AMI HERMANO EVER,PARA QUE ESTE CON NOSOTROS SIDIOS QUIERE, A MI HERMANO PEDRO YA NO TIENE SOLUCION. CADA VES ESTA PEOR LA DROGA E DOMINA Y MI MAMA ESTA MAL NO PUEDO ASER NADA POR QUE NO ESTOY ALLA PERO CUANDO ME VAYA ESTOY SEGURO QUE AYUDARE A MI MAMA Y MIS OTROS HERMANOS. A PEDRO NO PUEDO AYUDAR PERO A LOS OROS SI AYUDARE PARA QUE NO SIGUEN IGUAL QUE PEDRO ,YA MADURE MAS MUCHOS ALAN SER INFELIZ AYUDA PARA VER LO QUE HAY ADELANTE Y ATRAS. Y YO APRENDI Y MUCHOSSSSSS BESOS ALAN SALUDOS A HANNAY SOFIA A TU MAMI Y PAPI


And this certainly merits a response:
Querida Fátima,
Por favor dile a tu hermana que yo la felicito por su bebé, y a ti Fátima, por ser una tia – de las mejores tias que hay en el mundo. Traer a tu familia de Paraguay a Espana es una Buena idea – para difundir la mierda de las drogas. Yo sé que Pedro hace drogas porque lo vi endrogado cuando visité a tu familia en Paraguay. Aldo, el hermano de Francy, habló mucho tiempo con tu Papá, y me dijo que piensa que tu Papá también hace drogas pero tu Papá no lo confirmó. Es horrible que Pedro domine a tu Mamá, pero ella es fuerte. Ella me parecio muy fuerte cuando la vi en Mayo. Ella no come mucho porque le da toda la comida a sus hijos, pero ella tiene una fuerza interna muy feróz y bonita.
Yo debería de haber visto a Sofia y Hannah este fin de semana pero Lorena se me escapó y no sé como verlas. Así es mi vida.
Bueno, queridissima Fátima, sigue siendo lo que eres y te deseo y a toda tu familia lo mejor en la vida. Como se llama el bebé aun que no ha nacido?
Allan

And then I sent yet another email to Fatima,
Fatima, tu estas comunicando con Lorena por email? Por favor, tratalo, Te escribo mas despues!
Allan

And another one:
Querida Fatima,
La verdad es que siempre pienso en ti y en tu familia. Tu familia es muy importante para mi, y tu eres una de las personas más importantes para mi -- porque tu sabes lo que era mi familia en Paraguay.

Lorena esta diciendo mentiras y les esta enseňando a mis hijas estas mentiras para mantenerlas fuera de mi alcance. Es por eso que casi nunca puedo ver a mis hijas. Sofia y Hannah te necesitan para que tu les puedas decir la verdad – yo estoy bajo una orden de la corte que me prohibe hablar sobre Paraguay con mis hijas..
Te quiero,
Allan

And so I am learning how afraid people are in the United States. When things go badly for a long time, it is very hard to find anyone to help. It is so much easier to leave those just fall through the woodwork. Can I expect Dawn-Michelle, Stephanie, Michelle and Kelly to come to court with me on Tuesday and speak out what they know to be true? Michelle is the only one who has called me back and she did promise that she would call me back today but I doubt she will help me at this point. She may begin to help me if I have some kind of visitation rights with my children. Then she may have me bring Sofia and Hannah to her home to visit with her son Justice, but it is too much to ask of her, that she come and speak to the court about my ways with children. Shame that!

I will ride this out. There is a lot to ride out. Mel (the cute lesbian from Heine Brothers) called me just now wanting her bed back! I have had it in storage since I got the house on Zane street, since Brian moved out of his house (it was originally Brian’s bed) – that’s some eight months ago. The problem with giving it back to her is that it is in storage in Memphis. Yesterday I saw Mel at Heinebrother’s and she made no mention of it. Synchronicity: when things fall at the worst (and best) possible moments.

I don’t know how applicable these lyrics are but they go “I hear the train coming and time keeps dragging on, but that train keeps on rolling on to where ever. When I hear the whistle blowing I hang my head and cry.”


February 12, 2007
Dear Allan,
During mediation, we clarified that Monday was no longer a phone call day. the phone call days are Tues, Wed., and Friday. We also discussed Sunday as a good option. It is fine with me if we do Tues, Wed., & Sunday. Either way, I decided to have Sofia call you tonight anyhow to (1) let her tell you the big news about winning the young authors competition, and (2) remind you that the call has been changed to Tuesday since I thought you might have forgotten. I guess the reminder did not work because by the time you wrote this email, you had forgotten again.
I also told you on the phone that court is cancelled tomorrow & that I am going to resume the meetings with Lee Ann Gardner. I said I would write this in an email to confirm. I will call Lee Ann this week to schedule. You said your availability is after 3:30? Is that on any day? Did your availability change because of employment reasons?
I will also be asking Richard if he can schedule the visits for several weeks at a time so we can plan ahead.
We will call tomorrow.

Lorena Lasky

February 13, 2007: I respond to LL in the morning…
Dear Lorena,
During mediation you clarified that Monday could no longer be a phone call day. That is true. The next sentence is not true. I was know this because I was taking notes. I wrote that we discussed whether Tuesday or Sunday would be a better calling day and both you and I suggested that Sunday was better. I suggested it first and then you agreed with me because "the children are not in school that day." Thus, the call days are Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. Also, this means that you called yesterday because (1) You had missed the Sunday call and (2) tell me the big news about Sofia winning the Young Authors Competition. Thank you for that.

The answers to both your questions below are "yes." That is to say, "Yes, I would like to see my children after 3:30PM, meet you at LeeAnn's, call my children, meet with you for green tea or croissant au beurre, etc..." and "Yes, it is in part due to employment reasons but also to make sure that I can get there in time. ..I am worried , that with last minute decisions, if I am to be somewhere in the morning, that I might be unable to get there in time." For example, there was one time when I did not know that I was to see my children until 20 hours before the Parenting Time was to take place in the early morning. If you can schedule for any even to take place after 3:30PM, that is always better. If you have to schedule for an earlier time, then please give me a week's notice.

Yes, it is a good idea to plan for several weeks in advance with Richard. Thank you for recommending that. I do however hope my children and I can spend time every week end. It would not be possible for me to adequately or reasonably parent them otherwise.

As you know, it is crazy that I am in this position, that Sofia and Hannah should be in the mire, and that I should be getting and sending emails to you like has been going on since you arrived in the USA and I will always hope that this can become better.

Sincerely,
Allan

February 12, 2007
Dear Lorena,
Could you please set up an appointment with LeeAnn
asap and after 330pm, I would very much appreciate it.

Thank you,
Allan.


February 12, 2007
Dear John,
Please send me an email detailing all options
available to me at this point. Also, let me know when
I should call you or see you after 330pm any day.
Thank you,
Allan.


February 12, 2007
7:00 I try to call my children unsuccessfully.
7:15 I try again with the same result.
7:21 LL calls me and puts me with the children. She tells me that Sofia has important news to tell me, that the hearing has been postponed and that Mason told her to re-contact LeeAnn Gardner.
Sofia has Big news! I told by LL and then Sofia said “I got rid of and I’m getting braces” and Hannah will get braces too, 22 days before her birthday, But it turned out that this was not the big news, it was the biggest news in Sofia’s mind but it was not the bigges news in LL’s mind, so LL primed Sofia for the other news and it is that she got the second prize in the young author competition. Sofia told me that it is 6 pages and I asked her if she could email it to me.
Lorena lets me talk for 8 minutes only because the children “had to eat dinner.”
Lorena tells e that she is going to contact LeeAnn and set up an appointment.
Lorena tells me that the children need to eat dinner so we hang up.

February 12, 2006: I email Richard and LL about the phone call.
Dear Lorena,
I spoke with the kids for only 8 minutes today. You prevented more conversation because of "dinner." Please make this up.
Allan.


February 13, 2007
I called LeeAnn to tell her about the phone call and to ask her to try and get me a meeting time after 3:30PM with LL.

February 13, 2007
Allan,

I think that you have options available to you.

They are in two categories.

First, you can wait until the hearing as scheduled. That is self explanatory.

Second, we can seek interim relief. The relief sought would be dependant on what you want. I would suggest that we modify the supervisor - to include friends and/or family members. One option would be for you to have spring break with the children in NC with your parents acting as supervisors.

Think about it and get back with me.

John.

February 13, 2007
Dear John,
Interim relief is of categorical importance and there are two aspects that need to be dealt with.
1. Yes, let’s ask to modify the supervisor to include friends like Kelly McCarthy-Kenning – massage therapist, Michelle (Don’t know her last name), Peter Van Howe – elementary school teacher, Rob Kearn (? Walker-Fitzgerald is the judge in his divorce case!), Brian Bradshaw, David Herman, Dawn-Michelle Waddell and any of my family members including Lorena herself. I would also like to be able to spend more than two hours per week with my children. I think that a minimum of four is reasonable. (Members of my family are William and Inga Headrick (parents), Mark Headrick (brother), Cecilia de Moya (sister) and her husband Eric de Moya, Isabelle and Michael Hurewitz (cousin and husband) and their children Zeldovich and Avi as well as my Uncle and Aunt Daniel and Kate Headrick. I would like to add to this list a distant cousin called George Moryadas and his wife, Andrea, and child.)
2. I would like to spend Spring Break with my children at my parent’s home. They will come to Louisville to pick them up with me and they will return them as well – or at least one of them will for each trip.
3. If the next hearing is after the summer vacation starts then some provision for a similar trip should be made for that time as well.
4. The child support payments need to be modified. I can not pay what is currently ordered. I am literally broke and you might as well consider me to be living out of my car.
5. Email communication between myself and my children needs to be ordered.
6. Telephone communication as well.
In short, the child support payments and Richard expenses add up to such a large amount that I would have to be making income over three times what I am making to be able to afford it. As you know, I bought a house in Louisville and my Dad and I will email you the expense.
Finally, I would like to be able to communicate with my children in Spanish or German but possibly we need not worry the Judge with this?
Thank you,
Allan

February 13, 2007
Allan forwarded to me your suggestion about interim relief, as well as his response. If the trial in Allan's case will not take place until June, some interim relief is indeed needed on two fronts: his supervision and his child support payments. On the question of supervision, please bear in mind that you must give Allan guidance in the things he requests. If asking for unsupervised visits is beyond the scope of an interim hearing, you can propose what will fly in terms of the persons qualified to act as supervisors.

On the question of child support, you will need the numbers. Allan has given me the following figures. According to the ruling of the criminal court, until the Childrens' Court rules otherwise, Allan must pay child support in the amount of $150 a week, which is $664 during a 31-day month. His income at the Episcopal Church is $7.50/hour and he works 37.5 hours a week. (Allan just started this job and will not be paid for three more weeks.) He also receives $750 per month for rent from the tenant occupying his house in Austin, subject to the cost of repairs, which varies from one month to the next. The tenant is behind in the payments by one month. His maximum income, assuming no repairs on his house in Austin, is therefore of $1,810 per month. His unavoidable expenses include monthly mortgage payments on his house in Louisville of $1012 and at least $200 per month for insulin and other diabetic supplies. His disposable monthly income is therefore of $600, out of which he has to pay food, gasoline, public utilities, etc.

Lorena's disposable income may also be relevant under KY law in the calculation of Allan's child support payments.

It seems to me that, until Allan is able to earn more than the minimum wage, his child support payments should be of a very small amount, as he will face the prospect of spending a year in jail if the amount is larger than what he is able to pay.

Sincerely,

William C. Headrick

February 13, 2007: and then to the email that I had responded to from Lorena on the 12th, yesterday, I add:
Dear Lorena,
In the email below you wrote that you would call today and you did not. It is possible that this was a simple mistake and I am Ok with your explaining what happened and what we can do to make things better.
Thank you
Allan

February 13, 2007
Okay--now I remember that we agreed on Sunday, not Tuesday. I still had tuesday in my head as the time to call. That is fine--this week I will call Wednesday, Friday & Sunday.
You did not say anything to me on the phone about missing a Sunday call. Maybe you were thinking that Monday was a make-up call. I was thinking it was an extra call. Anyhow, it will be straigtened out for the future.
Please clarify about the "after 3:30" preference. Do you also mean weekends? I ask because you mention that you would like all visits after 3:30 pm as well.
Where are you working?
Lorena
February 13, 2007
Dear Lorena,
The "after 3:30PM" preference is every day of the week, Monday through Sunday. It does not matter what day it is, for me, it would be nicer if the meeting could take place after 3:30PM. I have not started work yet, I am anticipating starting and I would prefer not to tell anyone of my work place because of past events. I beg that you leave this alone, at least this time. Please. I will keep Richard fully informed.
Thank you,
Allan


February 13, 2007: LL copies me in on this email to Richard.
Hi Richard,
Would it be possible for you to schedule the visits with Allan & the girls weeks ahead of time so that we al can plan for them? Is it possible that you schedule the next 6 weeks worth of visits now?


February 13, 2007: I got the email moments later and sent Richard more positive reinforcement.
Dear Richard,
Would it be possible for you to schedule the visits with Hannah, Sofia and me weeks ahead of time so that we all can plan for them? Is it possible that you schedule the next 6 weeks worth of visits now?
Allan
February 14, 2007
Dear Sofia, Hannah and Mommy,
When I was a little boy, I think I was seven years old, I remember I dropped a big wrench into the sink and the wrench broke the ceramic and it was Valentines Day. My Mommy and Daddy shared their valentines day with me even though I had broken the sink (by accident). That is true love. Sofia and Hannah, I (and I think I can speak for Mommy) will always love you what ever happens for ever and infinitely.
Your Daddy

February 14, 2007: Valentines Day.
LL called at 8:25PM and it lasted until 8:55PM because the call was so late. And the children needed to go to bed. Hannah was not in a mood to talk because it was that late. LL did not tell me anything about the children so I had to improvise from the get go. Hannah and LL were fighting with the result that Hannah said “I'm sorry, Daddy, I am not going to talk.” And LL said “ then you are not going out with Sofia!” Hannah cries and there is much screaming and hollering. After a few minutes LL comes back on the phone and tells me that the children has been baby sat by Vera and were too tired to be able to reasonably speak.” Hannah is apparently moving away because LL calls out to Hannah: “Hey Hannah, look at me! You’re not getting up there -- you are getting in my bed. Hannah cried “No Mommy!”

My Telephone call with Sofia and Hannah February 14, 2007
First Happy Valentines day. Did you get my email? Sofia had not. How did you celebrate Valentines day?


"This is a quiz about various different animals... I'll give you the clues and you guess the animals."



1. I am an Australian marsupial, not usually hopping slowly.
When I have a baby, it's always called joey.

What am I?



2. I am usually seen in historical pictures, sometimes on a farm,
People may be scared of my height, but I usually mean them no harm.
I can be many different colors, maybe brown, black, white, or red
I sometimes stay in a barn, a stable, or a shed.
I can be short, but I can be tall too,
And I whinny or neigh when I call to you!

What am I?



3. I can be many striped colors - orange or white to name a few,
I may be a cat, but I definitely don't say "mew".

What am I?



4. I am a very dull creature,
Really lazy and really slow.
Judging from "Ice Age",
I've been around since long ago.
I am often seen hanging upside down from a tree,
And I have very sharp claws, so don't mess with me!

What am I?



5. I sometimes make squeaks or clicks,
And I swim in the ocean.
I can be blue or grey,
And I'm a mammal in motion.

What am I?



6. There are many cartoons that are based on me,
To name a couple, there's Mickey and Minnie!
I am small and usually white or grey,
And I may live in your house or in a field in the hay.

What am I?



7. I am a close relative of the dog, and I often travel in a pack.
I can be colors of grey, white, or black.

What am I?



8. I am a huge animal, in fact the largest on land,
I can live in a zoo or on the African Savannah's sand.

What am I?



9. I am small, hoppy and really quick,
I usually live in a hole in a forest where the brush is really thick.
I have long ears and a "cotton" tail,
I am very cute and have a keen sense of smell.

What am I?



10. I am the last animal,
But not the least.
My babies are called lambs,
I have a thick coat of fleece.

What am I?




1. Here we start, our first stop is the Chemical Lab, and the scientist there asks us: Which gas is not present in the bulk of space which is the reason that fire cannot be burnt there?


2. Our next stop is the Microscope Lab, the scientist asks us: Which insect has formic acid in it?


3. Our next stop is the Animal Observatory, the scientist asks us: What class of animals does a snail belong to?


4. Our next stop is the Water Pool, and the scientist there asks us which of the birds below can drink salty water?


5. Our next stop is the Bird Observatory, the scientist asks us if the question is true or false: Some birds squeeze oil onto their feathers to help themselves stay dry.


6. While leaving the Bird Observatory, the scientist asks us another true or false question: There is also a bird named the 'Tailor bird'.


7. Our next stop is the Science Bakery, the scientist asks us if we know what is the special thing about eggs which makes them stop rolling from the nest?


8. Our next stop is the Creepy Crawlies' section, and the scientist there asks us: What is the thing in worms which helps them breathe oxygen?


9. While leaving the Creepy Crawlies' section, the scientist asks us: In which country are the world's longest earthworms found?


10. Here comes our last stop, The Eight Legged Creature area. The scientist asks us a true and false question: Spiders belong to an animal group called 'arachnids'.



I believe Sofia loved this telephone conversation.

February 14, 2007
Dear Lorena,
Yes...you had me and the children talk at 8:30PM, one and a half hours (90 minutes) later than agreed upon: Problematic and very difficult with a bellicose child and no intro for me to work with... Now, having stated these issues I want you to understand that I would rather speak with Sofia and Hannah under these conditions then not at all. So, thank you. That was Valentines Day, I hope yours was happy.
Allan
Also, thank you for calling the next day.

February 15, 2007: In the early morning I get this from Helmers:
I am filing Motions on your time with the children - increasing it and granting you Spring Break - and the child support.

I will e-mail to you when filed.

John.

February 15, 2007: I get the following from Helmers.
Dear Allan,
Attached please find the motions that we have submitted to the Court. Please contact our office if you have any questions or concerns.

Thanks,

NO. 06-CI-501203 JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
FAMILY DIVISION THREE (3)
ALLAN ROBERT LASKY-HEADRICK, PETITIONER,
v. MOTION FOR INTERIM RELIEF
LORENA MARIE LASKY (FORMERLY LASKY-HEADRICK), RESPONDENT.
NOTICE
It is hereby noticed that on Monday, February 19, 2007, at 10:00 a.m., in the above
courtroom, the undersigned will make the following Motion and tender the attached Order
MOTION
Petitioner, Allan Robert Lasky-Headrick, by counsel, moves this Court to enter a temporary Order with regard to his supervised visitation. As the Court is aware, the hearing with regard to the visitation scheduled was continued until June 2007. Given the length of this delay, Petitioner, Allan Lasky-Headrick, requests that the Court enter an Order which (1) increases the number of hours of visitation from two (2) to four (4) per week; (2) allows for Court ordered email communication between Petitioner and the Parties’ minor daughters; (3) allows for regular telephone visitation; (4) increases the supervisors, including but not limited to include any licensed clinical social worker in the state of Kentucky, and Petitioner’s parents; and (5) allows Petitioner to vacation with the girls under the supervision of his parents to North Carolina.

And then there is another MOTION
Petitioner, Allan Robert Lasky-Headrick, by counsel, moves this Court to set a brief Child Support hearing. As the Court is aware, this issue was going to be addressed with the more lengthy hearing regarding visitation. As a result of the motion for a continuance, that hearing has been delayed. However, there is no reason to delay the brief hearing on Child Support. Presently, Allan is earning $7.50 per hour and is working 37.5 hours per week. Additionally, he spends two-hundred dollars per month for insulin and diabetic supplies which are not covered by insurance. It is the belief of the undersigned that given his current income level, he is entitled to an immediate reduction in Child Support. It appears to be a guidelines case and the exchange of income information within the next ten (10) days will determine the guidelines amount.
Date: February 15, 2007 Respectfully submitted,
HELMERS DEMUTH & WALTON, PLC
By:____________________________
John H. Helmers, Jr.
429 W. Muhammad Ali Blvd.
200 Republic Building
Louisville, KY 40202
502-581-0077
jhh@hdwlaw.net
Counsel for Petitioner
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
It is hereby certified that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served, via fax, and
via U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, this 15th day of February, 2007, upon:
Mason Trenaman, Esq.
600 W. Main Street
Suite 200
Louisville, Kentucky 40202
Counsel for Respondent
HELMERS DEMUTH & WALTON, PLC
By: ___________________________
John H. Helmers, Jr.

NO. 06-CI-501203 JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
FAMILY DIVISION THREE (3)
ALLAN ROBERT LASKY-HEADRICK, PETITIONER, v. ORDER LORENA MARIE LASKY (FORMERLY LASKY-HEADRICK), RESPONDENT.
Upon Motion of Petitioner, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a hearing on Child Support shall be set for the ____ day
of ______________, 2007 at ____________. The Court allots ____ minutes for the hearing on this matter.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties shall exchange financial information within the next ten (10) days.
Date: _________________, 2007 __________________________________________



February 15, 2007
Dear John,
Thank you for trying. Let me know when I next need to appear in court.

My current employer gets very stressed about absences and tardies so it is best to give her as much warning as possible. (I have told her about a custody battle in court and she will understand.)

I remain grateful to you for your services,
Allan

February 15, 2007
You do not need to come on Monday. I will give you an update on the events on late Monday or Tuesday.
John.

February 15, 2007
I had a good conversation with my children. I walked into a video store and asked them a million questions about children’s movies. But I suspect that Yesterday LL did not know about the motions that Helmers had submitted yesterday.

February 16, 2007
At 7:00PM I called my children at LL's usual phone number even though I had been told that it does not work... and it rang interminably and then at 7:30 I called LL's other numbers and on her cell phone I left a message stating that I would very much like to get to speak with my children... And then at 8:15 she called me when I had just sent her an email which you can read below..... (To send that email I had to call Papo and dictate the message.)

February 16, 2007
Dear Lorena,
While I recognize that life may at times be complex, and that you may have a term to describe your own personal life, which may or may not include the word complex, and there are also physical limitations, superimposed on all psychological and emotional ones (such as, for example, your telephone is broken), I would like for you to please help me forgive you for not having made it possible for me to speak to Sofia and Hannah on this important day, 18 February of 2007. What is needed here, Lorena, now, is immediate, proactive, determined commitment to realizing telephonic and email as well as in-person communication between the children and their father, myself. This been needed since December 15, 2003.
Sincerely,
Allan.

And I had just finished sending this email when she called! But she also responded to this email two days later and here is what it said:
February 17, 2007
Allan,
The 18th of February is tomorrow. If you mean today (Saturday the 17th) we never had a phone call scheduled. The phone calls are for Wed., Friday and Sunday. You talked to them this week do far on Monday (8 minutes), Wed., Thursday and Friday. That is, you are way over schedule in days this week. The next call will be Sunday between 6:30-7:30pm.
Check your blood sugar level. You are wasting my time, Richard's time & attorney's time (thus money) sending emails implying that you were "wronged" when, in fact, the calls this week have exceeeded the minimum required by court order.
Do you disagree that you have spoken to the children 4 days this week--ALL 4 calls initiated & made by me?
Lorena Lasky
And I thought to respond to this email for a while but then I didn’t…:
You may read the email I sent in two days reading.

Anyhow, LL sounded like lacerated stainless steel. Her voice was ice cold and she was perfunctory like a machine. She did not want to tell me anything about the children before putting me with them: She said "There has been no change since yesterday."
“What is that supposed to mean?” I wondered.
"What did our children do today?" I asked.
"They went to school “ she said and then she put me on the phone with Hannah. Oh what a great conversation I had with Hannah! We talked about a myriad different topics with a fluidity and a wonder that was awesome. “What animals do you like?” I asked her and she listed as many animals as she could think of... the list went on and on. At one point she told me that she liked llamas. I asked her if she had ever seen a llama and she said that Mom had. She added that the llama had spat at Mommy. I asked Hannah, “when did that happen?” She did not know so she went to her mother to inquire and was told that she did not want to speak about the incident. Hum?? I told Hannah that Mommy and I had seen Llamas in Macchu Picchu but that the llamas had certainly not spat! And then I had a very fluid conversation with Sofia. Sofia pulled out some magic cards and read my fortune based on asking me for a secret number (which I had to tell her since she is the one who had the cards and had, for all effective purposes regarding this fortune telling, power of attorney) and then she told me what other numbers are lucky for me.

All in all the sad thing about my conversations with my children is the enmity that looms all around them from which they have to speak.
My telephone conversation was cut off with Sofia saying "I’ll see you Sunday." She sounded stressed out as she said this.

But I have not been informed of this. How did she know? I found out an hour later…

February 16, 2007
I made a child support payment.

February 16, 2007: very late at night Richard sent this.
Lorena; did you and Allan agree upon a meeting location for Sunday at 1:00p as we discussed 2/14? I need to know by 1:00p tomorrow or I will cancel the appointment. Thanks, Richard

I did not get this until after my phone call with my children was ended, and I responded by writing to Lorena and Richard two separate emails. (I copied Lorena’s email in to Richard’s account so that he could read what I sent her.)

Dear Lorena,
I would like the meeting place to be Dog Hill (we have been there before, one time, do you remember?) --- for sledding and other snow related experiences. We will sled until we are tired and then we will go to Heinebrothers at the intersection of Eastern and Bardstown road for Hot Chocolate and goodies. We will drive in my car from Cherokee park to the goodies. So, this time the drop off point and the pick up points will not be the same. Please be so kind as to pick the children up at Heinbrothers.
Thank you very much,
Allan

and

Dear Richard,
This evening, Friday at about 8:15PM, in conversation with my daughter Sofia, I heard that we would see one another on Sunday. That, was the first I ever heard of my children and I meeting. Lorena did not speak with me on the phone about this issue after Sofia and I spoke. She has to date, not spoken with me about a meeting location for Sunday at 1:00p "as you and she discussed 2/14. " As you know, she has also not emailed me about this matter either.

I have been left completely in the blue about this week end until it was almost the week end.

So, here is a the meeting place: Dog Hill --- for sledding and other snow related experiences. We will sled until we are tired and then we will go to Heinebrothers at the intersection of Eastern and Bardstown road for Hot Chocolate and goodies. We will drive in my car from Cherokee park to the goodies. Richard, please confirm that you are good with this. I would appreciate your response before 1:00 PM tomorrow, Saturday.
Thank you very much,
Allan
11:15AM I sent an email to LL and to Richard.
Dear Richard and Lorena,
It is now 11:15AM on Saturday and the dead-line for the appointment is in forty five minutes. Richard, can you please extend the dead line? Lorena, can you please respond to this? I will call both of you pending your having called me first in fifteen minutes.
Thank you very much,
Allan
11:30AM I called Richard Nassr and left a message: What incentive does LL have to reach an agreement with me? If she does not do so within the next thirty minutes, then according to Richard the appointment gets cancelled? I asked Richard to please call me.
11:34AM I called LL and left a message asking her to please call me. She was on another line… Maybe she was talking with Richard? It is snowing outside and very pretty.
11:45AM still no news from anyone. I have just checked my emails.

12:45PM Richard called. He sounded very upset. He was at his ends. He no longer had a grip on reality. I listened to him and allowed him to come to his own conclusions. He sounded out his thoughts like a blabbering idiot. Finally he concluded that the best that he can do is to document. At first he said that he wanted to cancel the appointment and then at the end he had changed his mind and indeed his last words were I’ll see you tomorrow.
Richard had attempted to get LL to communicate with me about a meeting place and it had failed and he concluded that this is not something for which the children should be deprived of meeting me. I told Richard that Helmers had filed two motions and that LL had probably learned of this yesterday. I told him that LL had sounded “icy cold” last night. I told her that I believe she is “angry.” Richard concluded that she was angry because her ploy to keep the custody battle from taking place had been threatened. There is another dimension to this which nobody recognizes. Yes, LL does not want me to interact with my children and does so only with great reluctance. I believe she does this because the children put a phenomenal amount of pressure on her to allow us to interact. For example, the last two calls have started out with LL stating that she is calling because the children have clamored for it. But the real irk for LL is the financial pressure that she is under. If I am really lucky, she will have no power to fight the motions or the final custody battle in June. Oh, Richard is pretending to not understand why LL does not communicate with me – although he does recognize absolutely that she does not do so, and that I am the one who always initiates communication. LL gets other people to do her work for her, she herself does not do anything which is why she seems to some of the worthless idiots involved in this case (Kim Dial, Ginger Crumbo, LeeAnn Gardner and Craig Hansen) to be somewhat angelic! Imagine that – she is a terrible person with an angelic aura. Anyway, the thrust of Richard’s position was that he had provided LL with an opportunity to “negotiate” the meeting places and times with me, that Richard did not want to be a mediator, and that LL had failed. When I told Richard that the reason the custody hearing had been postponed he said “Bullshit!”

Now, Richard deserves to suffer because he has been such a shoddy professional (kowtowing to people with whom he disagrees like the KGB) and stupid person (displaying no sense of how to write a letter to a judge, but I never want it to be at the cost of my children.

So, yes, I certainly got the impression that Richard is sick and tired of this case. He pointed out that LL had stated to him already a year ago that LL has no problem with me interacting with the children, only she wants it to be supervised. What a nut he is. Can he not see that LL wants other people to do her work for her? I re-iterated to Richard that I
Am in a chronic state of shock! Richard said he would call Helmers Monday morning.

I mentioned that my friend Peter could supervise for free. I told Richard that Peter is an elementary school teacher and Richard reacted very favorably to this. He wanted to interview Peter. I told Richard that Peter knew the whole story. Richard was glad! He also wants my parents to be in on the picture.

Basically, Richard took the following stand regarding tomorrow: We will meet even if LL does not respond. (She responded at 4:08PM)


And when there is the parent like LL parent, recently divorced and deeply wishful to have nothing to do with you except get your money, who will listen to pseudo professional con people, who needs the Establish-ment? So these mavericks, like Kim Dial and Ginger Crumbo continue to circulate, paddling in the same scientific shallows, attending the same conferences and boasting connections with the same research institutes. They travel the world quoting each other in circular support, reinforcing a fringe belief in unproven interventions for abuse and projecting: propagating the mistaken view that ordinary doctors are cowed by mysterious vested interests into not doing their best for children with abuse... This is twisted for two reasons. The first is that I have never abused my children and the second is that they are the ones who are cowed. I quote Craig Hansen, after speaking with these awful therapists stating that "The work of Dr. Hawkins is irrelevant."
Their harmful agenda is, regrettably, assisted by newspapers with acres of space to fill, which delight in feeding the middle-class paranoia over perfect parenting. For these organs, cute Ph. d. carrying Ginger Crumbo is a newsroom blessing on a slow Sunday. Or, in the case of our meeting of professionals including telephone conferencing with Texas, which produced a docudrama followed by a lame debate between Richard Nassr (who had behaved without direction and myself, a surefire ratings winner. Unfortunately for Seven Counties and their disciples like Craig Hansen, hundred of studies published in Richard's methods have failed to confirm a parent and abuse link.
There is nothing wrong with a scientist pursuing a hunch, and everything right about parents wanting to do the best for their child. There is nothing even particularly sinister about Kim Dial and Ginger Crumbo gambling their reputation on an instinct. But there is something depressing beyond belief about a scientist who refuses to recant in the face of overwhelming opposing evidence.
Seven counties claims to hold the interests of abused children above all, and has been lauded simply for listening. But showing compassion and respect to those affected by abuse is also about being brave enough to admit you were wrong, and not using the distance to Texas etc.. of vulnerable parents to push your own agenda.

Well, it’s 3:30PM and there is no notice from anyone of anything.
Then, at 3:55PM I get this:
Allan; as you might recall, a taxi will not come to Cherokee Park and our
contract stipulates no transport by you during visitation. I have not heard
from Lorena despite an email and phone message. I will have to assume that
she recieves this message and I will see you tomorrow at 1:00p at Mid City
Mall. If you and your children choose to go elsewhere by car, a taxi will
have to return us to Mid City mall. Thanks, Richard

And I respond
Dear Richard,
Yes. and Thank you. (I have no choice is also in my heart.)
Allan
Hum? Ok, so it seems like Richard is trying to put a little pressure on LL? Poor guy, he really got himself in a crunch by writing that email regarding cancelling the appointment and then realizing that the ones who suffer are Sofia and Hannah. Now, LL can lie about communication with me and she can say that the appointment needs to be cancelled by Richards own words. Yes, Richard is an idiot.


February 17, 2007
Allan,
Driving in your car is not acceptable for the visits, as you know from signing the contract with Richard. Other than the driving, I have no objection to the locations you mentioned. In view of the driving not being okay, where do you want me to drop off the children?

Dear Lorena, I will ask Richard to relax this requirement. I will seek a response to this from you tomorrow.
Allan

February 17, 2007
Richard & Allan,
If you see my previous email, I also mentioned the driving concern. I have been working at the Youth Opportunities Showcase all day (which was the reason the visit was on Sunday, not Saturday). I received both messages. Allan's message asked me to read the email before I called anyone back. Mid-City Mall is fine. I will bring the children there at 1:00pm on the side facing Bardstown road.
Thanks,
Lorena
February 17, 2007
Allan,
The 18th of February is tomorrow. If you mean today (Saturday the 17th) we never had a phone call scheduled. The phone calls are for Wed., Friday and Sunday. You talked to them this week do far on Monday (8 minutes), Wed., Thursday and Friday. That is, you are way over schedule in days this week. The next call will be Sunday between 6:30-7:30pm.
Check your blood sugar level. You are wasting my time, Richard's time & attorney's time (thus money) sending emails implying that you were "wronged" when, in fact, the calls this week have exceeeded the minimum required by court order.
Do you disagree that you have spoken to the children 4 days this week--ALL 4 calls initiated & made by me?
Lorena Lasky

Dear Lorena,
Oh dear, no, that was a typo: It is not supposed to say 18, but 16 (sixteen.). It is clearly a typo because the sentence strongly implies that I am talking about that very same day. If you look at the date when the email was sent you will see that it was the 16th of February and not the 18th. And you state in your email, the telephone calling dates are: ”Wed., Friday and Sunday. “ So then the 16th was a Friday, a regular calling date. As it turns out, you did call me on that day, but very late. I had already sent this email when you called. It was past the children’s bed time. You called me at 8:15PM, and you will recall that it was a short call because of the lateness. You may also recall the screaming and shouting that you blamed on a tired Hannah with whom I did not speak.
Lorena, your last sentence and question does not make sense. The answer is quite simply “no,’ and for many reasons not least that I have been calling you and leaving messages, reminding you to set up a call between the children and me, which means that you have not initiated them. I know that on one occasion I also emailed you to remind you to call me. Moreover, at times the calls do not last but a few minutes (because the children are supposed to eat fast food in the car or because it is so late. At times I can not speak with both children…. And so again while I recognize that life may at times be complex, and that you may have a term to describe your own personal life, which may or may not include the word complex, and there are also physical limitations, superimposed on all psychological and emotional ones (such as, for example, your telephone is broken, which is the reason why YOU must initiate the calls), I would like for you to please help me forgive you for using people to distance the children and me from each other without cause. Wrong, very wrong, much more wrong than anything that has been discussed is what has been done with Sofia and Hannah since December 15, 2003. I am certain and will chronically attempt to improve the lives of Sofia and Hannah who are still young and deeply hurt by being used as pawns in a game you have played for your own selfish purposes. Thus, your statement that I waste people’s time and money is completely out of line. According to our daughters, you and your mother hurt the children with your lies about me. You are projecting when you write about wasting people’s time and money. I am not wasting your time but working to help Sofia and Hannah, I am not wasting attorney’s times, but making my case clear, and every day that you have the children and do not share them with me, is a day when the children are “wronged.”
Sincerely,
Allan

Ok, here is what I did send:
Dear Lorena,
Let me write four things and then later I will expand on them:

1. Ok, I made a typo. It was supposed to be '16,' not '18. ' This is implicit in the email. Moreover, the date the email was sent was the 16th. You called me at 20:15, very late, and after I'd sent you my email.

2. "Check your blood sugar level" is nothing short of insulting.

3. Yes, you have used the children as pawns in a ploy to get rid of me. That is wrong, and it is even worse than anything that has ever been discussed.

4. I disagree that the children have either individually or in pairs spoken with me 4 days this week-- and I disagree that you have "initiated & made the calls" because the statement makes no sense since your phone is broken and I have been reminding you to make the calls, even if some part of it might be something like true.

May I please invite you for a cut of tea someplace -- so that we may speak?
Sincerely,
Allan

And then one more email for the evening asking LL about meeting for counseling with LeeAnn. (The following email is paraphrased.)

Dear Lorena,
When do you intend to make true what you said about Mason and your conversations about us meeting with LeeAnn? I always look forward to meeting you and hope very much that we can somehow find a way to make things better for our children.
Sincerely,
Allan

Now, check out the last minuteness of all this! It was not until after sun down that I got LL’s email confirming the parenting interval for tomorrow. But let’s say LL had sent it at 4PM (I checked my emails at 4:00PM) when the sun is still in a snow cresting sky, then we are dealing with 21 hours notice. Richard, LL broke your record. You had managed to keep it from me until 20 hours before the event. It is very different to get a call (Richard) then it is to get an email (LL), so effectively LL wins to prize for atrocious communication!

February 18, 2007
Today I am scheduled to see my children. That is great.

February 18, 2007
Breath in, breath out, breath easy. Remember that Richard is a spineless idiot. When he speaks with me he tends to say the kinds of things that I want to hear, when he speaks with LL, he tends to say the kinds of things LL wants to hear. When he speaks with Kim and Ginger he tends to say the kinds of things they want to hear. He is a worthless animal - the last dodo bird.
In one hour I am to see my children again. Richard will be there, but he wants to not be there next week end. Hum? He is trying to accomplish two things (1) to share the shit with someone else (2) to not be alone in his position on the stand. I must tell him that I understand these two reasons and that I do not approve of the first because it is Richard who caused this. He is directly responsible for the last letter he wrote the Judge where he prescribed a reason for continued supervision. That is to say, Richard deserves to have to supervise. It is his fault.
They were late in arriving: 8 minutes late. That gave Richard and me a chance to speak. I actually arrived 7 minutes before the children were to arrive. I told Richard I was angry because “he undermines my authority to determine where I will spend time with the children, because he panders to the listener when he speaks, because he sets LL up with communication ideals knowing full well that she has never lived up to that and because he has undermined my right to take my children in the car.

Richard told me that he has asked Dennis Hefton to share in the supervising because he can not handle it on his own. Dennis has agreed. Dennis even agreed to 3:30PM on Sunday. Richard called him right in my presence and got that settled. I was not in a mood to be compromised. Richard does not believe that there is not an opening at the court until June, he seemed appalled that the hearing had been postponed that long. He seemed to not understand it. He thought it was a legal trick. I bet he’s right.

I told Richard more about the motion to have certain changes made. I promised him that I would email him the motions and the email from Helmers stating that he would have a response to the motions by Monday or Tuesday.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The time with Sofia and Hannah.
As usual LL was late. Does she care? She has never had to care, so why should she care today? Richard and I were in the middle of heavy discourse – I was not being easy – as we approached the car and Richard had to quickly finish his sentence. I opened the door and kissed both my children. First Hannah who had fallen and dirtied her pants, and LL was telling me that I needed to clean her pants and I was like “yes, yes, yes,” while kissing Hannah and telling her that she was my girl who had fallen and dirtied her pants and a wink, and then I kissed Sofia and told her that she was my daughter who had not fallen and not dirtied her pants. I asked LL if the children had eaten. “I made some scrambled eggs which they did not like,” she said. And then the children somehow made it out of the car and we wandered into the Midcity Mall. Just as we were entering I asked Richard what the result of telling LL to let up on the car issue and he told me that he had forgotten. I asked him to call LL. I did not grant him the ease that he so yearned. He did and he got LL’s OK. So it’s a go! I can drive my children places again. That I was not able to, for a while, was Richard’s fault. Ok, so my children are playing with the floor. They are trying to step only on the dark pink tiles as we walk towards my car. Stepping on the light pick tiles was not permitted – though Richard did not play along. Hannah had a stomach ache because she had not eaten. I asked my children, where they would rather eat – at the supermarket or at the café and they opted for the café because it had a computer option – they could either play games on the computer or they could look at videos of themselves or they could watch a DVD. But then, when we got to the café, Hannah said that she did not like the food so I decided that we would go to the Asian Buffet. We went to my car and pulled out my computer and the presents that I had bought the children for the last week end when I had not seen them because Richard had done such a shitty job of getting LL in line. And so I oput these with my lap top in my back pack. Hannah complained about her belly. I offered to carry her. She loved that. I carried her in my arms until she wanted to get back down and then we were back in the mid city mall where there are the light and dark pink tiles…
We made it to the Asian Buffet (in the same building) and that proved to be a great success for Sofia. Sofia loved the concept of choosing and selecting the foods that she wanted. But Hannah did not know quite how to handle the ample selection and ended up with only pears. Then she saw that Richard was eating spaghetti and indeed she wanted that, so I went with her to get some and that was fun and good. The children did not eat much, but a least they ate something and their moods were very elevated. They sat in my lap and watched videos of themselves on my computer and laughed at pictures of Richard. In fact, Richard was the source of much amusement since he was eating for the first time in a year! The children picked up on this and became giddy. Sofia has a great sense of humor. She remembers one time when Richard and Hannah were to marry and this caused her to laugh repeatedly. Hannah did not care about this. But then, when we left and re-realized the trek on the light pink tiles, Hannah was in great mood. She wanted to go to a park. Sofia wanted to go to a dollar store. I said “Ok, let’s do both.” So we got in the car and drove to Tyler park so that Hannah could fly the paper airplane she had made herself with the airplane book, and then we went to the dollar store where Sofia bought pipe cleaners and Hannah bought ear rings. (Oh, Hannah loves her new ear ring. It is a gold stud and one of the first things she pointed out to me when I first saw her.)


Pics and videos February 18, 2007\Videos feb 18, 2007\LL, Richard babble.AVI

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

LL: There is a motion, that says that any social worker who qualifies…
Richard: Does it have to be a social worker?
LL: I don’t know, that’s the way they wrote it in their motion, that a qualified social worker would be able to do it and uhm.
Richard: I would honestly be satisfied if it was someone who merely had the ability to follow court orders. Allan has proposed a licensed teacher who would do it for free…
LL: Why would anybody do it for free?
Richard: Laughs. I don’t know, but it would take me and my aid out of it. But it would take the financial burden out of it and quite honestly any reasonable adult would not allow any of those risk factors to occur. Hopefully my screening would weed out any horror stories, there is no guarantee what ever we do.
LL: Right. That’s something to keep in mind Allan because I think there is an agreement that is going to come out probably next week that is going to be extending to four hours but we’d have to find some on who could do that. Richard can you do four hours?
Richard: No.
LL: What about three?
Richard: Babbles..
LL: Well, he will hear if from the attorney. I am going to agree to the four hours if he agrees to Saturday 4 hours and Sunday 4 hours which is eight hours total but only every second week.
Allan: Basically what she is doing is she is not increasing the hours?
LL and Richard together: No, you are getting all the hours you’re asking for in the motion.
Allan: I still think it is better for my children to see me every week.
LL: and that way, if I want to go camping…
Richard: Yes, but Dennis is committed to every Sunday at 3:30PM.
LL: Well, ….
LL: They’ve got a motion for the court next week.
Richard: So why can’t we agree to any professional that I screen?
LL agrees.
Allan: I look forward to some intelligence.
Richard and LL laugh.

(This conversation with LL is recorded! Go to February 18, 2007\Videos feb 18, 2007\LL, Richard babble.AVI)

Called Richard and told him that I was both sorry and grateful. I was sorry that I had spoken out because it makes other people retract into a defensive posture. I was grateful that he had managed to get LL to consent to having any adult present subject to Richard’s approval for supervision. Richard assured me that I need not apologize.
I wondered if LL would call LeeAnn. She had emailed me a while back and today she had said that she had called her once and that LeeAnn had called her back. Will LL call again? Let me write a bit about LeeAnn.

LeeAnn got together with Craig Hansen and they both decided that LeeAnn would restrict her job to playing the game that Nancy, LL, Kim and Ginger are playing but to hide it behind a limited job description. So, LeeAnn had no power, was unable to do anything. She just listened and sometimes made suggestions that LL did not obey and it did not matter because LeeAnn was concerned with LL’s and my natures and not with the children. So when LeeAnn suggested that I be able to speak with the children to LL and LL agreed, it did not mean anything if LL did not let that happen.
LeeAnn was always a waste of money because she could do nothing. But the reality of LeeAnn is that she blames me and LL for the lack of progress. She claims that we can not be worked with. She claims that any orders from the Judge need to be written in stone. She does not acknowledge that this is her fault. The reason LL and I appear to be so opposed to agreeing is because LeeAnn is intent on having nothing to do with Sofia and Hannah. If LeeAnn would get to the crux of the matter, then LL and I would have to work with that. But she doesn’t. LeeAnn’s job is to keep the lid on the shit that the KGB (LL and Nancy too) have created.

February 18, 2007



25 minute call on Friday.
My phone is working now. You may again resume making the calls. The next call due is tonight at 6:30 pm. If I don't hear from you by 7pm, I will call assuming you did not get this email.
Hannah is sick & in bed, by the way, so unless she waqkes up and feels better, she will not talk tonight.

I did not get this email until 8:12PM and she never called.
Dear Lorena,
What do the words “. If I don't hear from you by 7pm, I will call assuming you did not get this email,” actually mean to you? Why did your write them? This sentence is quite simply false.
Sincerely,
Allan
And then, five minutes later, Sofia called! And she now knows my number because LL told her. I asked her Math questions and some questions from below.
1. If you could ask someone any question and they couldn't lie to you, who and what would you ask?
2. If someone asks you to steal, would you?
3. What would you do if your coach told you to trip someone from the opposing team so your team could win, would you do it?
4. Who is more important to you, your family or your friends?

“You can’t come to Mommy’s house,” Sofia told me at one point when we were talking about her own make believe school in the basement of LL’s place. I had asked her about parent-teacher conferences. I responded that “Mommy can always come to my house.” ’
But all in all, my conversation with Sofia was a wonderful conversation.

So, then, after the call, I sent LL another email:
Dear Lorena,
Hannah was a little different when she was with me from 1:07PM to 3:00PM. She had a stomach ache and wanted me to carry her (which I did a little) and she ate just a little bit of spaghetti. Then she was happy to just sit in my lap and watch videos of herself and Sofia on my computer. She may have been sick when she was with me but it was not obvious.

I stand slightly corrected -- I talked with Sofia tonight because she called at 8:15PM. That is one and a quarter hours after you stipulated in your email below. Sofia called after I had sent you an email stating that you had lied about the phone call, and five minutes or so later, it turned out that you had not quite lied about the call.

You had told Sofia to tell me that she was calling late because Hannah was sick. That is not ok. Please do not use Sofia to excuse your calling late. Instead, get on the phone yourself and tell me what you want to tell me. Do what LeeAnn Gardner asked you to do.

Sofia told me "You can never come to Mommy's house." Telling that to Sofia is unacceptable.
(I told Sofia that you, "Mommy, will always be welcome in my house.")

I am glad your phone is working. I will call tomorrow at 7:00PM.

Sincerely,
Allan

And Helmers
Dear John,
I want unsupervised visits. Richard will call you tomorrow. He got Lorena to agree to any adult supervising pending Richard's approval. He is prepared to go to court.
Allan

And that’s enough for February 18, 2007

February 19, 2007
I called the Bloom elementary school to see if it would be possible for me to conference with Sofia and Hannah’s teachers. I left my phone number and email address and I was told by the secretary that I would receive a response today – but I did not. I wonder if LL has something to do with this?

February 19, 2007
I called my children at the usual time (7:00PM). LL was very uninformative and it took a great amount of work to get her to tell me anything. She picked up the phone and when I asked for a quick summary of the children’s day so that I could have a lead into a conversation with them, she handed the phone to Sofia. I asked Sofia to give the phone back to “Mommy” so that I could ask her a question. Sofia did so, and then I asked again for a clue about the children’s day. Again, it was like pulling teeth. She said things like “oh nothing,” or “they played” and then she said that “Hannah was sick and that Hannah had vomited.” I asked her what and where the children had played and she told me that they had played in the house and handed the phone to Sofia.

Sofia and I spoke for an hour and seventeen minutes. She read me a science book and asked me questions from the book. “Which is the most intelligent animal in the ocean?” Sofia asked and I guessed that it was dolphins. “What is the name of the insect that feeds on human skin?” I did not know. “Dust mites….” She responded and read the section in the book about dust mites eating dead skin that flakes off your body. I also learned that Orca whales are actually dolphins.
I asked Sofia the following questions:
5. Your best friend got into an argument with another one of your good friends. She tells you not to hangout with your other friend anymore. What would you do? “Then I am not friends with her any more,” said Sofia
6. Would you rather be a grown up or a child?” Child,” Sofia responded.
7. Who do you think has it easier in life, boys or girls?” I don’t know.” She was emphatic and I agreed with her.

I was speaking to my children from Peter’s house and he told me that he experiences an ineffable, indescribable warm fuzzy feeling when he hears me speaking with my children.
LL is a hater and there is no one out there to curb it. It is awful how she has hated/hates on me to Sofia and Hannah. Curses.

I was sad to see that there was no email from Helmers.

And the next day at 4:00PM there was still nothing from Helmers. So, I sent him a short reminder:
February 20, 2007
Dear John,
And if you would please let me know what Richard Nassr said to you.
Thank you,
Allan

February 20, 2007
Dear Lorena,
How is it going with the meeting with LeeAnn. If I set it up, will you go?
Allan

I am very sad that Helmers did not respond to me today. He had sent an email to me last week and stated “I will give you an update on the events on late Monday or Tuesday.“ and this is now a lie. Should I be surprised? Guess not, remember how John Izzo (the first lawyer in Texas) tried to destroy my chances by calling the intake investigator when the allegations were first presented. (See John John Whitfields deposition.) Lawyers play, lie, cheat, swindle and tease the case for their own. So, what is Helmers doing now? Lorena, in her interview with Richard Nassr said something about negotiating. That implies that the Judge would not become involved. If Helmers is negotiating with LL’s lawyer, Trenaman, then I am not pleased. And I have not heard anything from Richard?

I imagine speaking with the KGB and telling them that there are two reasons why they are evil. The first is that I am innocent. The second is because of their atrocious professionalism. Both these reasons merit their incarceration and revoking their licenses to practice.

I called Craig Hansen. He told me he was in the middle of something and I offered to call him another time when he would not be busy. But then he told me that there was no reason to call him. I told him that there were reasons to call him. He inquired what these were and I told him “for edification and education.” He re-iterated that he had “threatened to call the DA’s office” and he did not know why he had not yet done so. I told him “I think it is because you know that what you did was wrong,” and he hung up on me.

I called LeeAnn and left a message on her answering machine expressing the wish to meet her and LL ASAP.

February 21, 2007: I met Hannah’s biological father on line.
Scottie: yes but i had that one already
Allan: Oh cool there you are. Ok, I will send you another. Hold on. I have to learn how to do it with Yahoo messenger.
Scottie: so how have you been
Scottie: i see a cup
Scottie:
Allan: Ok, here she is in the snow.
Scottie: i see i got it
Allan: And then she gets in the car....
Scottie: wow she looks older now
Allan: Here she is back in the snow. Yes, she is a big girl, very tough, strong, unafraid, she is a bit of a tomboy
Scottie: good
Allan: So tell me something about your life
Scottie: oh nothing new just down at ft bragg now i had my gall bladder removed last week so i am resting from it
Allan: Are you going back to Iraq? Have you interacted with Sarah? Did you hear that she got married? Do you think Sarah is afraid to communicate with me?
Allan: this is Sofia
Allan: This is Hannah again
Scottie: i dont see any
Allan: Ok, well, I keep trying, here is Sofia and Hannah's head in the front.
Scottie: the pics are not up on my end
Allan: Is anything coming up?
Scottie: not now
Allan: Do you see Hannah?
Scottie: just those 3 pics
Scottie: got that one
Enviaste 1 foto a scottie kelly.
PICT0308.JPG

Allan: Ok, I do not know what I am sending because somehow this computer does not let me look at the picture before I send it. Some of the pictures are of Sofia and one includes my x-wife.
Scottie: ok
Scottie: all you have to do is right click on the item and hit preview
Allan: Are you going back to Iraq? Have you interacted with Sarah? Did you hear that she got married? Do you think Sarah is afraid to communicate with me?
Allan: Oh, thank you for that computer tip. I will try it.
Scottie: i am not going back anytime so and i have only talked to her once or twice since i been home so i am not sure whats in her head
Allan: About 8 months ago I was in Durham and offered to meet her.... but she did not respond.
Scottie: yea she is a hard one to catch
Allan: When are we going to meet?
Scottie: i dont know how to contact her no more
Scottie: its up to you i am home now back in the states
Allan: does she now have a different telephone number? Does she have a different email address? And as far as meeting you are concerned, I would like to do that. I am a little busy with work but there has to be a way to do this.
Allan: How far is Ft. Bragg from Louisville?
Scottie: all i have now is the e-mail i gave you for her and i am cool about meeting you
Scottie: 7 hours
Scottie: did you try and send the other pics
Allan: I am trying...
Scottie: oh ok
Enviaste 1 foto a scottie kelly.
PICT0333.JPG

Enviaste 1 foto a scottie kelly.
PICT0334.JPG

Scottie: wow she is so pretty
Enviaste 1 foto a scottie kelly.
PICT0318.JPG

Allan: Yeah, she is a wonderful child.
Allan: She is very strong too. Lots of balance and she is fearless. So, for example, she is totallu unafraid to sled down a hill at TOP speed.
Allan: Her sister, is different. Sofia prefers to read and stay at home. Hannah is very much into the great out doors.
Scottie: yea i think thats me
Enviaste 1 foto a scottie kelly.
PICT0323.JPG

Enviaste 1 foto a scottie kelly.
PICT0324.JPG

Allan lasky: Oh great! Me too! I like it outside more.
Enviaste 1 foto a scottie kelly.
PICT0327.JPG

Scottie: so you have two different girls
Allan: Hey, do you have any fotos of yourself and or your children you can send me to show Hannah?
Allan:: Yes, I have a biological daughter called Sofia and an adopted daughter who you helped create.
Allan: At least that is what Sarah said.
Recibiste 1 archivo de scottie kelly.
130564689_Donna_4937_4_72.jpg
Abrir (Alt+Mayús+O)

Allan: Oh great! That is a wonderful picture. Can you tell me who the people are and how you are related to them?
Recibiste 1 archivo de scottie kelly.
slk2.JPG
Abrir (Alt+Mayús+O)

Recibiste 1 archivo de scottie kelly.
slk5.JPG
Abrir (Alt+Mayús+O)

Scottie: ok the two girls on the left that are sitting side by side are my two girls
Allan lasky: ok, keep going...
Scottie: the two lil boys on the floor the lil light skin one and the one beside him are mine
Recibiste 1 archivo de scottie kelly.
nanaparty.jpg
Abrir (Alt+Mayús+O)

Scottie: the lady with the pink on is my mom
Recibiste 1 archivo de scottie kelly.
slk4.JPG
Abrir (Alt+Mayús+O)

Allan: Oh good. I will tell Hannah of her other grand mother and siblings...
Recibiste 1 archivo de scottie kelly.
reading_004[1].JPG
Abrir (Alt+Mayús+O)

Scottie: the others are brothers sister neices and other family members
Recibiste 1 archivo de scottie kelly.
slk1.JPG
Abrir (Alt+Mayús+O)

Allan: Ok, who are your brothers and sisters?
Allan: Who are Hannah other Uncles and Aunts?
Scottie: the ones that are in front of me i think its 3 guys those are my brothers
Scottie: and there is one more
Allan: What are the names of your brothers and sisters?
Scottie: ok here are my brothers and sisters
Scottie: Mary, Darryl, Donna, Keith, Kevin, Bobby, Robert ,Lisa
Recibiste 1 archivo de scottie kelly.
130564795_Donna_4940_7_72.jpg
Abrir (Alt+Mayús+O)

Allan: I will take these pictures to Hannah, or I will show her the pictures on my lap top and I will tell her as much as I can about the family from which she comes biologically, so it would be great if you could tell me as much as you can over the course of time.
Scottie: sure i will as time gos on
Scottie: so does she know about me
Allan: Oh yes, I have always told her about you and Sarah. I have shown her the pictures you have sent me over the internet and I have told her that you are a soldier in Iraq.
Scottie: wow what did she have to say
Allan: I have also told her that you really want to see her and that you feel an emptyness not having any way to interact with her.
Allan:: She is VERY interested in you.
Allan: She is also VERY interested in Sarah.
Scottie: wow thats cool
Allan: I do not have any pictures of Sarah so she is less interested in Sarah, which is a shame. Do you have a picture of Sarah?
Scottie: i wish i had some pics of her but i dont
Allan: Ok, if you can get one that would make a REAL BIG difference.
Scottie: if she contacts me agin i will try and get some
Allan: Now that I have pictues of your family, I will have a lot more to show her.
Scottie: thats great
Allan: How long will you stay in fort Bragg?
Scottie: at least till sept
Allan: Will you then maybe go back to Iraq?
Scottie: no i will either stay there of go to indianna
Allan: I now live in Louisville and will stay here for a good while. I have a job working in an old peoples home.
Allan: What is your telephone number? Maybe I can call you next time I am with Hannah?
Scottie: ok well one weekend when i have some time i will come up that way
Scottie: 7047851196
Allan: Thank you, I am going to call you (I hope I remember) this week end so that you can talk with Hannah.
Scottie: ok thank you
Allan: My tel number is 502 457 0062. You can call me anytime you want but I like it when people call after 7PM.
Scottie: ok i will do.
Allan: That way it doesn't use up my minutes.
Allan: I might call you tonight.
Scottie: ok that works for me
Allan: Ok, let's continue communicating this evening when I call you... I truly can not wait to see you and I can only imagine that for a small child like Hannah it can only be fascinating?
Scottie: i feel the same here
Allan: Cool, I'll catch ya later, bye brother, take care, life is alright if it isn't utterly beautiful.
Scottie: well thanks again and i will chat with you later
Scottie: yes it is

February 21, 2007

(Note: My last interaction with Sonja was April 11, 2006)

Liebe Sonja,
Was ist los mit dir? I am now in Louisville Kentucky again trying to spend some time with my children. I had a wonderful time in Paraguay. Are you still studying for a Ph.D.? Allan

Hi Allan! Yeah I'm still doing my PhD here in Holland. I'm going to Bolivia in June. Are you going back to Paraguay? Do you have any news of Mike by the way? Hugs, Sonja

Dear Sonja, No, I have not interacted with Mike since I last saw him in Paraguay. But I do know that he has been to Asuncion since I was told by several people at the Britannia Pub that he had been there. He was also seen with the wife of the owner of that Pub -- the German fellow, I do not remember his name.

And I hope very much to return to Paraguay since I love that part of the world, but if you are going to Bolivia, then maybe we could meet? June? How long are you staying in Bolivia, and where will you be? Cochabamba? Santa Cruz? La Paz? Sucre? Potossi? All places in Bolivia are beautiful. Is it part of your Ph.D. research? I can not remember what you are studying -- psycho-linguistics?

The last time we chatted you had just fallen in love. How’s that? Bitte schreib mir auf Deutsch.
Bundles of smooshfrogs,
Allan

Hi Allan! Ja das waere voll cool dich zu treffen in Bolivien, bin da meistens im Dschungel (TIPNIS Nationalpark), aber sonst in Cochabamba und ab und zu in Trinidad ( Trinidad ist leider einer der weniger schoenen Teile Boliviens, finde ich...) Ich bleibe drei Monate dort, Juni bis Anfang September. Ja, das ist fuer meine Doktorarbeit, wir fahren in den Busch zu den Yurakare und erforschen deren Sprache. Das sind echt super liebe und schoene Menschen, wenn ich dort bin bin ich immer voll entspannt und happy. Ist aber auch echt anstrengend, das Klima und so... Wann gehst du denn wieder nach Suedamerika? Ich wuerde auch noch mal gerne nach Paraguay, aber dieses Jahr gehe ich nach der Arbeit dort 10 Tage nach Buenos Aires und Montevideo, da kenne ich auch noch Leute, die ich besuchen moechte.

Interessant mit Mike, ich muss unbedingt mal versuchen, den zu erreichen, hab auch ewig nicht mit ihm gesprochen. Zu dem anderen Thema, ja, ich bin noch verliebt, aber er wohnt halt in Berlin, das ist nicht so nah, und er wohnt dummerweise noch mit seiner Ex zusammen, das ist auch nicht so schoen... Naja mal sehen was draus wird...

So, jetzt erst mal alles Gute, dann schreib doch auch mal auf deutsch zurueck!!! Bis bald, Sonja


February 21, 2007
7:00PM I called my children at LL’s number and the phone rang interminably and no one picked up the phone.
7:15PM called again, same result.
7:45PM called again same result. And then I decided to call LL’s cell phone. I left a message:
8:23PM I called LeeAnn to tell her that today’s telephone call did not happen. I told her that I do not have an agenda with my children – she had told Helmers that she thought both LL and I have agendas.

February 21, 2007
Dear Lorena,
Today is Wednesday, an official telephone call day. I had promised Sofia on Monday that I would call today. I called today starting at 7PM, the official calling time and then every fifteen minutes until 8:00PM. Your telephone rang until I hung up. I waited for many rings each time. No one picked it up. At 7:45PM I called your cell phone and left you a message. It is now 8:30PM and I have not heard from you. What happened?
Sincerely,
Allan

February 22, 2007
I called the Bloom Elementary School again. Remember, I had called two days ago and they have not yet responded. I called to remind them of my desire to interact with Sofia and Hannah’s teachers. I also want copies of all documents
1. what are her strengths? Weaknesses? What is she learning through the week end? What is her homework tonight?
2. How does she interact with others?
3. Does she have friends? What are their names? (can you tell me?)
4. Have you interacted with my child’s therapist?
5. What has the mother of my child told you about me?
6. Has anyone else told you anything about me, who and what?
7. What is the joung author competition (Sofia only.)
8. What are her favorite activities in school?
9. Can you copy some of her work and keep it for me?

February 22, 2007
I called Helmers office and left a message asking him for an update.




A teacher is one who makes himself progressively unnecessary. – some one said that but I do not remember the name, but it has been in my head since about a week before Sofia was born and Leyla Colhmia told me this quote. Yes, I think so: Parenting is coaching kids to help them make better and better decisions in all parts of their life, so that when they grow up they are happy, successful adults. And I was able to inculcate enough of this parenting style in Sofia before LL and Nancy played their evil game on my daughters and me. Sofia still has some remnant of the “I can do it,” mentality especially outside of the domains of LL and Nancy. Hannah however is unfortunately not a “can do” child except in the very limited senses in which she can do better than Sofia. And what is that? It includes hitting, screaming, yelling and some athletic feats. Hannah is on medication and needs a tremendous amount of help. How can I convince anybody in this city of insecure assholes that the only person who can help Hannah and Sofia is me? When I told Craig Hanson, he laughed at me. (Inappropriate behavior.)

Can-do kids identify themselves by eagerly wanting to solve problems and do things themselves, thinking through ways to solve problems, and showing confidence in their ability to make good decisions. You probably don’t have a can-do kid if you solve most problems for your kid, think things through for your kid, or have a kid that is short on self-confidence. Sofia is like this with me in many ways – mostly the academic ways. I understand that she now has the self motivation to read and has won the second prize in the junior author competition at her school – something I want her teacher to copy for me so that I can make sure that it remains documented.

Now here is the trick, just in case you think I am projecting, But ‘can do’ parents do not motivate ‘can do’ kids. Maybe its because any high achieving parents give their kids too much stuff, squashing their motivation, and they make too many decisions for them, making them poor at solving their own problems. But probably it is because it’s just plain awful when kids turn out like their parents – kids need their own sphere and to work on it until they are adults
And so I wonder about good parenting, how to do it. There is no equation. There are some broad generalizations. Respect, love, ethics and so one and on.
My four-year-old, Sofia lost a toy in the back underneath the sofa in LL’s apartment and asked me to get it. “Ich kann, so weit, nicht,” I can’t reach it—Mein Arm ist zu groβ,”my arm’s too big, “Was kőnnen wir machen?” what should we do?” Sofia had tried too and didn’t have a long enough arm. Of course I could have pulled the couch off the wall to retrieve the toy, but instead asked, “Golly, how can we get it?” Suddenly she said said, “Ich weiβ, I know,” ran to get a long toy and was able to push the toy out from under the seat. She ran around the house gleefully shouting to everyone, “I figured it out, I figured it out!” This distant example contains some of the essence: be positive and encourage the child to figure things out on her own.
It sometimes is a very short, simple activity that is successful. For example, instead of dictating what my soon to be 7-year-old Hannah would wear to a birthday party, I would say, “Hannah, if you lay out three sets of clothes and say what you’d like or dislike about each, you get to choose.” I would compliment her sincerely on her decision processes. “ It will be one if the first time I dream of her getting complimented, rather than criticized, her judgment, and it could make a real impression on her because ‘see, I can be smart.’”
And I can think of two kinds of things which are necessary for this kind of method to work (it does not always work) One is results. Kids naturally become proud of their ability to figure things out when their decisions turn out to be good ones. The second is praise from parents. Sincere praise. It’s almost like cheerleading: “Kids, good for you for figuring out how to organize your study desks!” My children are in dire need of love and resourcefulness. They have not had much of this during the last three years, since arriving in the USA. High achievers are motivated to figure out how to get over, around, or through obstacles. They live to meet challenges, because they are resourceful.
Oh, and forcing kids to learn things is fruitless. It’s about figuring things out. Think about Nemo, Home Alone, Harry Potter. But Resourcefullness is power and as George W Bush, Kim Dial, Hitler, Ginger Crumbo and Pol Pot have shown, power can be abused. Yes, good parenting turbo-charges motivation and resourcefulness, but I want and must provide moral guidance for their can-do kids to do the right things.
And the opposite parenting style generates children with a PHD (Ginger Crumbo has one of these)… they are (P) passive, (H) helpless, and (D) dependent on parents to solve their problems. Depression and suicide in my teenage daughters will happen if I can not break through this shit. I must find a ways to invite my children to be up-beat and confident; as they should be, and because they are successful in life so far! Look at the way they have survived the hell from the Lasky family! (Not a topic for until they are older.)
Now, my children are just like other children and admittedly they must now be like Nancy and LL, so I do not suggest dealing with misbehavior by saying, “You impose your own consequences”… UNTIL kids are responsible, can-do kids. Can-do kids are almost never disciplined—they have liberal curfews, and there are few time outs… but only because they are very responsible for their age. They know there will be severe consequences with bad choices. They like the freedom and independence they earn, and when they mess up (as all kids do) they impose real consequences on themselves. And this will take a long time because of the destruction that KY CPS has imposed and LL and Nancy have enforced.
When my kids solve problems they know it, and they are proud. When Sofia does math problems with me on the phone or when she calculated the number of tiles on the floor by multiplying, she feels her wonder. When I praise my kids for smart judgments, they glow. But here’s the clincher: kids earn more and more freedom and independence when parents trust their judgments more and more. And as soon as I have custody of my children I believe I will see the results immediately although then later there may be intervals when the spark may appear dead, but it merely lies dormant, just waiting to perk up.
You know the worse thing about Tony Blaire telling the world that the situation is getting better in Iraq is that if anybody were to go there, they would find that Tony is a liar and be murdered… or even before they had done any research, be murdered. The military does not allow it. There is something like this in my family. If anyone were to investigate the Lasky’s they would discover the psychological derangement and establish the coaching -- but no one allows it. There is something very sinister about Nancy and LL, and I find the greatest sin of people even above their crimes is their positions ‘she knows what is right blah blah blah.’ Where do you find the good? I am overwhelmed by the conviction that there will be another heinous move by LL and Nancy. I sense when I look at this history that LL and Nancy have created the whole fateful madness and while I have kept the ‘faith,’ I do not have the social power to realize something better.

February 22, 2007
Liebe Sonja,
Ich soll dir auf Deutsch zurueck schreiben? OK, wenn es sein muss…Es ist eine absolute Scheisse das dein Liebhaber nicht mit dir wohnt. Es ist natuerlich sehr moeglich das er keine sexuele Beziehung mit seiner x-Frau hat, es ist auch moeglich dass er sie nicht liebt und so weiter. Aber in der Zwischenzeit must du dir fragen was er macht? Benutzt er deines ‘da sein fuer ihm’ wenn er in Holland ist oder wenn er sich in deiner naehe befindet? I also don’t know if you have an open relationship. Maybe both you and he are taking pleasure in one another while it is available because there is nothing wrong with that. It is only not a chronically-dream-relationship.
I too am stuck in such a situation. My lover is in Asuncion. She is Colombian and has a Ph.D and teaches both at the American School and at the University of Asuncion. I love her dearly but I see her even less than you see your lover. She lives with her x-husband. When I visit her, she takes me to one of those hotels where you pay by the hour and we make love like bandits.
As far as meeting you in South America, I would have to be a little lucky…. I really want to go, but I am in the middle of a terrible custody battle (for my children, Sofia and Hannah) and I can not give up on them.
I have not a Ph.D, and I am jealous that you are working on yours and the topic that you are researching is both beautiful and very interesting. Congratulations!
Allan

February 22, 2007

Dear Martha,
How are things in your life? I wonder wonder wonder... when you sent your email did not tell me when you went to Italy and am guessing that you have been? What were the high points of your time (if you went to Italy or otherwise if you did not)? I met Rena at a mediation meeting, with lawyers and legal jargon etc, but I was able to ask her if she had communicated with you and she said that she had not. She also said that she communicates pretty much only with the person from whom she had purchased ‘La Plazita.’ (I can’t remember her name.) She also admitted that she had not communicated with you and I told her that I thought it would be nice. Don’t know what else to say or do. I am sad if she does not communicate with you if I have anything to do with it, but I do know for 100% certain that she does not want to communicate with me.

Hey, Peter just called. I had mentioned him to you in previous emails. I told him that I was emailing you and he asked me to send you his problem solving management technique:” Just be. You are right.”

Ok, well I sure wish you and Rena can communicate. I wish for all together communication on a great scale all over the world. I just watched Tony Blair on TV.
And it seems to me that the worse thing about Tony Blaire telling the world that the situation is getting better in Iraq is that if anybody wanted to go there, they would find that Tony is a liar and so the military does not allow it. That’s not fair and fairness is realized only if there is communication in the world. Ok, here is another example: 1 in 8 women get breast cancer but only 3.2% of the money that is available for cancer research looks into the causes of breast cancer and very few know this and or do anything about this. Bloated bureaucracies and government inertia prevent action.

Ok, enough! Martha, I think of Alec and hope all is well. I hope you had a wonderful time in Venice (or that you will) and that everything is falling into place. It must be cold where you are. It is cold here too, and my head is bald so I can not survive long without a hat. Then I think of Alec, he must be an incredible guy!
Allan. .

February 22, 2007
7:00PM I try to call my children and the phone just rings.
7:15PM I call again and it is again, to no avail.

February 22, 2007
Dear Lorena,
So now what? I tried to call my children today again and it was the same as yesterday. I called today because you had written in an email that I should consider the next day as a calling day when a day is missed (by you at least.)
Sincerely,
Allan

February 22, 2007
I called LeeAnn to let her know that the telephone conversation tonight with my daughters had not worked out because no one had picked up the phone.

February 23, 2007
I made a child support payment.

I stopped by Helmers office and saw him in passing. I asked him to send me an email.

LeeAnn Gardner called. Our conversation was silly: She said “we will just have to agree to disagree.” I said “It’s like Tony Blair stating that the situation in Iraq is getting better but no one can go there because the military will not let you so he can get away with this disgusting lie.”

Then I called her back and left a message stating that if anyone did even the slightest bit of research into this family they would realize the disgusting folly of its evolution.

LeeAnn plays underhanded character assassination.

February 23, 2007
Please confirm the visit location for Sunday at 3:30pm
You spoke to the childen on MOnday for more than 30 minutes, which is not a scheduled call day. You also spoke on Sunday. Once you speak to them Friday, you will have your 3 calls for this week.
By the way, they will never be home Thursday at 7pm--they have ballet practice at that time.

February 23, 2007
Allan; as Lorena requested, please confirm the visit location. As I have requested multiple times, stop copying me on things of which I have no control (ie: telephone calls). Richard

February 23, 2007
Dear Richard,
Relax.
Take a deep breath.
Let it out.
I want someone to stay up to date with the tel. issue because it is important for Sofia and Hannah. What do you suggest?
Again, breath easy.
ready?
DOG HILL confirmed (Lorena sent her email at 09:45 or so, you got it at 14:30 or so and I am confirming at 16:55 or so.)
Sincerely,
Allan.

Dear Lorena,
I spoke with LeeAnn Gardner and she said that it is not true that you had called her and it is not true that she called you back. You had said this with Richard Nassr present, last Sunday. Again, I am concerned about the truth value of your statements.
Sincerely,
Allan

February 23, 2007
And even though I asked Helmers to send me an email he did not. Indeed there has been absolutely no progress in the situation for my children and they continue to fester in the uncalled-for Lasky enmity towards me.

February 23, 2007
Dear Lorena,
In the email below you write "Once you speak to them Friday,..." and I called at 7:00PM, 7:15PM, 7:30PM and 7:45PM and each time, nobody was available to pick up the phone. What this means is that your sentence is without truth. The rest of your email implies that the week starts at midnight on Saturday...
Sincerely,
Allan

February 24, 2007
I am perfectly relaxed, thanks. No more emails as to things that I have no control. Face-to-face parenting time issues only. Because you copy me on
emails regarding lack of phone contact is no more proof for Sofia and Hannah's cause than you keeping a copy yourself. I spend way too much time
wading through the countless emails each day. Alicia or myself will see you on "dog hill". Thanks, Richard

February 24, 2007
Allan,

The first motion was for a hearing on visitations, which took place last Monday, February 19. You did not attend that hearing, but Helmers must have been present. I suggest you ask him what was decided at the February 19 hearing for interim relief relating to visitations.

In connection with the second motion, ask Helmers whether the income information has been exchanged and what date has been set for the motion for interim relief on child support payments.

Your Dad

I used Farfar’s email to fashion one for John:

Dear John, One of the motions you filed was for a hearing on visitations, which took place last Monday, February 19. I did not attend that hearing, because you told me not too, but you must have been present. What was decided at the February 19 hearing for interim relief relating to visitations?

In connection with the second motion, has the income information has been exchanged? And what date has been set for the motion for interim relief on child support payments?
Thank you,
Allan

February 24, 2007
At 1:00PM I tried to call my daughters and the phone simply rang.
At 2:00PM Sofia called and left a message “please, Daddy, call my back since we missed talking with you yesterday.”
At 3:00PM I heard the message and tried to call back but no one picked up the phone. I tried again at 4:00PM.
6:06PM I called and Hannah answered the phone! She responded immediately (she must have been prompted to say this) “Daddy, we are about to a Chinese restuaruant so Mommy says we will call you back.” I said “Ok, Hannah, I love you.”
6:07PM, a minute later, LL called me and tells me that she wants me to speak with the children on the way to the Chinese restaurant and is about to pass on the phone to one of the children, when I said “No, wait! Please tell me about the children’s day?” LL said “They went to girl scouts and then they went swimming at the YMCA.”
Then Hannah got the phone. Note, I was speaking with Hannah on the cell phone, it was not on the speaker. This means that LL is not scared to what I might tell the children – she must know that I am going to tell them that the things they have been saying to their therapists are not true… I guess she doesn’t care because now, so many years have gone by that nothing can be made of it. So, I start talking about Girl scouts. What did you do?
“We got our faces painted!”
“Oh, did anyone take a picture of you?”
“No, but I also got some Chop sticks and put them in my hair and it looks good. And we also bought braids…” “And we made a heart, with two flowers.”
“Once again I need to put the phone down and now I have to put on my seat belt.”
I was able to gather that there had been presentations from various cultures at the girl scouts event and Hannah proceeded to tell me about something to do with Antigua, (I think she had a booklet because she was able to spell out various longer and strange words as well) And Paraguay. We tasted some ……. (was that Sopa Paraguaya?” I could not tell. But Hannah did say that it tasted good. “And Thailand and boats and Kenya… we… that’s where we stage painted our faces… And that’s not all but that’s what we
I know Mexican taco.”
And the other one
Where did we get out Greece
In Greece we got our names written in Greek and that was a strange thing for Hannah to get, but in the end she understood that the place was Greece and the Language Greek. She told me that she had learned how to write her name in Greek. “Oh, what does Hannah look like with Greek Letters?” I asked and she said “ There is a curvy h and then a Loopty loop a and two v’s and then another loopty loop a and a curvi h that I put on the end because they had not done so.” Then Hannah said “You need to go pee, Henry?” and that means that she was back in LL’s place? But we talked about the fact that Henry does not like to go out in the rain and “And henry is a cat and doesn’t like water.”
“What animals like rain?” I asked her.
“Frogs, hippo, fish polar bears, dolphins whales, fish, crocodiles.” And then again she said “One minute I need to put my seat belt on.” And then I asked her, “What animals do not like water?” and her answer was again awesome: “Cats, birds, zebras lions, ants, camels, ostriches, cheetas, red robbin,
Plants,
At some point she told me “The tree loves oxygen, “ and then she added “And of course, the animals too.”
“What animals do not live in water?”I asked and spawned an awesome list that lasted many minutes and included: Giraffe, monkey, eagles, woodpecker, “I forgot one animal, horse.”
“What plant likes rain?”Trees, dandilions, lillipads,
“What about the cactus?” I asked her. “Oh yeah! Cactus that is prickly.” And then she told me a story that I was not able to follow exactly but it sounded like there were “Avatars who drank the cactus juice and got mad and it looked like the shape of mushrooms.”
“What animals live in salt water? Fresh water?” was the next series of questions and she came up with the following animals:
Algae, crabs, sea urchins, sharks, scorpions, jelly fish, sea urchins,
What does a sea urchin look like?
“I’m still thinking?” she said and asked Sofia and LL.
“Oh, Fish hide in it like nemo’s dad.” Said Hannah.

“What animals live in the air?”
Birds, god, plants, stars, eagles, blue birds, angles,

Flying fish squirrels, havwe extra skin, glide,
Pterodactyl,

Some how, Hannah then stated that “Sofia lost volcanic rock. How did the volcano go away?” she asked.
I’m goona tell vera and sofia,

Sofias turn happened just as they were arriving at the Chinese restaurant:”Do you already know what you want to eat?” I asked and Sofia said that she was getting what she always gets: noodles, egg rolls, sushi, broccoli and chicken and steamed rice. I asked her if she like soy sauce and she admitted that she did though she rarely uses it. Then I asked her questions like the following:
8. I am 100m tall. I have a trunk. I need carbon dioxide and water. What am I?
9. If you had a choice about how tall you can be, would you want to be short, average, or tall? Why would you choose this height?
10. I am 32m long, I am an excellent swimmer and I am a mammal, What am I?
11. If you had to choose between being rich and not happy or poor but happy, what would you choose?
12. I walk on four legs, then two legs and then three legs. What am I?
13. Would you cheat if you knew you wouldn't get caught?
14. What is next in the sequence: 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64…




February 25, 2007


I was on my computer at Days and Alicia taps me on the shoulder and says that she “is here.” I said “I want to speak with you for a while.” I saw that she did not want to speak with me. She gave me one of those ‘I don’t care’ smiles and I told her that I had been insulted by her stating that the reason she was there was to “supervise.” “There has to be a less insulting or demeaning way to phrase that. Perhaps…” She interrupted me with some thing that I can not remember and I then continued “perhaps you could say that it was because a judge had ordered it…”

First the children sent LL emails!

I showed Hannah pictures of her father and their family and we tried calling Scottie but Hannah left a message. I believe this may have been momentous for Hannah.

The children watched videos of the last visit and in particular Hannah loved the video of the “who you gonna call? Ghost-busters!” song she and Sofia sing.

We went to the car and that was fun too. Sofia and Hannah and I chased one another around the parking lot.

I made a recording of them working on the plates, but most unfortunately I did not record the conversation that ensued. Damned!

An interesting visit. Over an hour and more into the visit, Hannah said to me "Grammy is the one who speaks badly about you Daddy." This came completely out of the blue. I believe Hannah. I believe that while Lorena knows absolutely what her mother has done to the children, she has not done anything about it. Nancy coached the children to make statements to the social workers while they lived for their first year in the USA. (I do believe that Lorena also looked on while the coaching took place at discrete times because in June of 2004, Sofia told me so on the telephone.) And by the way, this happened while the children were painting their ceramic plates. Hannah said that Grammy said things like “I did peepee or I need a doctor or… (what was the third reason? Grammy doesn’t like me.) But the problem with Kentucky CP is that it has not bothered to inquire about the evil (my own word) grandmother. Hannah then went on to say "You never did anything bad to us." Sofia added "We all know that.” It is really a shame you were not here. And it is also a real shame that Alicia was doing what ever she was doing because she is worse than Richard. Ok bye.

I spoke quite a bit of German with my children today.

When kissing the children good bye I told LL that the children had sent her various emails and that I was hoping that email exchanges could take place between the children and I.

LL arrived a little late. She called first… I put Alicia on the phone with LL.
Then I called Richard back because I want to talk with him.

Of course I do not think that anything will come of this. No one gives a shit.


February 25, 2007: I got the following email from Sofia that she had written on my computer while at Day’s Coffee house.
EQ4FGSRNDFJVBNIONXSVHBGHMNJBWDFGBGUHMDSDFGHKJHGFRSDADEFRTGHJGFDSA

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
sdfetghyfesvyjuhujunmk,l.seZRGTFVUYJ/P'kj.LKDSRAezxdHJU'/
OHLKJGDWsaDGY"?kjHJKDRAwszcfgHST'O?"LJKYGFSRDEwAZjcblg;/h"J".;l,gkjsdcaVBHNJKL.;f'/H?>b,kcjhbgsFADFCAgvhbcjklh;n'k
L"?NH.g,fmhagFAhjisodp[f;g
'hjK";lhkgjhfytfrdcfvgdhfjgkil;'j
kJ'h;glfkdjshaGFACvdbnhjml,;.'/HG.,mzhghbjskdl
'ghj?;lhkgfdscv aBNKL'sd
fGHJ.,hkmgjhfdsaXc vBSNDFMGK,LH.;/KJ'HGLKFJDHSGFAdxC Vbznjdkflg;h'j
I";hgloifudystfdzsxcsghdjrklt;'y
UJK
"m;lkjghfdsaDSFGHFGHJ'K
;LGKJFHDSFAdSsadFGHFKHLJ''HG;FLDKSJHGfdASCFdghxfjhg;jK';hgifdusygatfDSAdgfhmkj,lmnbvcxZzaSXDCVFBGNHMJNBVCDSXAZZXcdvfbgnbvcxzZXcvbnmb vcxzzXFCGHXJFKCGLB.N/ HMGNBVCXDZX

February 25, 2007: LL got this from Sofia
AaBbCcDdEeFfGgHhIiJjKkLlMmNnOoPpQqRrSsTtUuVvWwXxYyZz

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

February 25, 2007: Hannah sent this to LL
dear mommy when we were trying to find daddy's computer Sofia pushed me. and I ran. Love, Hannah

Now, I want to complain about these ridiculous supervisors. First Alicia agrees to go places in a car, then she says that Richard said, in a telephone call ten minutes later, that we could not go in a car. I had two reactions: First, What is that? I am not a yoyo. And second, I did not believe her even though she urged me to call Richard. I tried to call Richard who did not answer his phone. That made me believe her even less. After the parenting time was over, I called Richard and asked him to call me back so that we could discuss the incident. He never did. But Richard had left a message on my answering machine telling me that I may call him and telling me at what time he would be in a supervisory role so that I would know when he would pick up the phone. Also, Alicia told me to call Richard. So I am now sure that Richard lied about my being able to call him, and I am fairly sure that Alicia lied when she said that she had spoken with Richard about going in the car.

February 25, 2007
Oh dear, even though I spent some time with my children today, I was supposed to call them and I forgot. Even funnier is that I did call LL by mistake, (I accidentally pushed the talk button on my cell phone and she responded).) She too, did not mention about me speaking with the girls.

February 26, 2007
Called John Helmers and asked the secretary, Amanda to provide me with an update. She told me that Jill, Helmers secretary was off today and that Helmers was in court. She assured me that she would speak with Hemers and call me back. I asked her to leave a message, if I do not pick up the phone.

Called the Bloomington Elementary school and left my email address, for the third time, for Hannah and Sofia’s teachers to email me.

And finally I got an email from the school my children are attending. It seems very distant and I believe it was a carefully crafted email written by only one of the teachers on their own and the behalf of the others. It is also worth noting that it took a long time for anyone to make contact with me. Finally, recall the email that LL sent telling me that I should first make contact with the principal of the school and I am significantly impressed with the notion that the stench from the Lasky-Ungaro lies is in the school.

February 26, 2007
Please send two self-addressed envelopes so we can send your children's report card
to you. This would show how they are doing in school.
Thanks Pat Baldwin/ Jenny Davis and Cindy Odgen

I responded:

Dear Pat Baldwin, Jenny Davis and Cindy Odgen,
Thank you very much for your email. I will certainly send you “two self-addressed envelopes” so that you can send me Sofia and Hannah’s report cards. I am a little curious why you need to send the report cards in separate envelopes?

Sofia told me last week that she had won a prize for a story she wrote. A ‘young author’ award? I would very much like to get a copy of that work. Do you think, you could make a photocopy? And I will be more than glad to reimburse you the copy costs…

But I am very much more concerned about the well being of my daughters than report cards can even come close to mitigating. I am a teacher and understand the myriad encumbrances upon the profession and certainly am asking for only the normal exchange of information to which parents are entitled. Thus may we please set up a telephone conference with each of you? Both my daughters are in a very difficult situation and I am sure it may be very helpful for someone at the Bloom Elementary School to speak with me about the circumstances surrounding them: Is there a counselor at the school and may I please be put in touch with this person?

Thank you very much,
Allan R. Lasky-Headrick

February 26, 2007
I met Scottie on line and he was very happy to have gotten Hannah’s message on his answering machine. He was truly sad that he had not gotten back to call her in time. I gave him LL’s telephone number and told him to try there. “Why not?” I said because he said he was nervous to get in touch with LL. Scottie said that I had made him very happy by having Hannah call his phone and leave a message. He told me th