I asked Polmueller if he knew what Munchausen by Proxy was? He answered yes, a mother who makes their child sick
and then pursues treatment for them. I asked if Ms. Frederick was Munchausen by Proxy? He answered "no."
I asked, could it be possible that she has Munchausen by Proxy? Again he answered no, citing he was the expert
and he knows more about it than me. I asked if it is possible for someone to induce emotional symptoms into a person?
He answered yes, they can do things to induce them. I asked if it is a possibility that Ms. Frederick is Munchausen?
He answered, anything is possible.
Because Carpenter had a criminal trial scheduled for the following week, he was undecided when he would have available days to schedule additional hearings. On or about April 11,2000, I received a notice of April 7, 2000 scheduling our next hearing for April 20, 2000.
In closing the April 6, 2000 hearing, Mr. Carpenter openly and on the record directed a statement to me as follows: Mr. Kearns I am beginning to grasp what had been going on here. I can see that the doctors were not listening to you. I see the system has not treated you fairly. I know you have no respect for the system and you probably don't have any respect for me either.
During the interim period between custody hearings, an incident had occurred on April 9th, where Stephanie was beat up in a bath tub by her mother, half-sister, and half-sister's husband. The beating took place just before I was to pick Stephanie up that Sunday evening. When I picked Stephanie up, I noticed she was wearing a baseball cap and was talking as if something was in her mouth. I then realized her mouth was swelled. I also noticed Stephanie was walking with a limp. Because Stephanie acted differently, I asked her what was wrong? She answered, they beat me up in Grandma's bathtub because I threw a hissy fit when they wouldn't allow me to have another biscuit. Steph said Aaron broke the door in and they threw her down in the bath tub. She told me she hit her back on the foot stool in the tub and her back and leg hurts. She said her half-sister held her down in the tub while her mother punched her in the mouth, face, knees, and back areas. Steph then showed me the cut inside her mouth. While the melee was playing out, Steph said Grandma Frederick watched over them and cursed at her. Steph told me her mother and half-sister had picked on her the entire weekend and said she was aware they were trying to create an incident to cause her to fight back. When I asked Steph if she wanted to visit her cousins that evening, she answered "no, I am wearing the hat because I don't have hair on the top of my head."
On Monday, April 10th, I went to the custody office and asked for help, since CYS could not be trusted. Janice Meadows told me she would do something. At around 11:00 a.m.,a CYS caseworker, Shannan Kelly, and Kay Engelbret came to my home to question Steph about the incident. Once again Stephanie gave them an exact recount of the beating. Accordingly, Engelbret told Steph we will have to change your situation so this never happens to you again. As a temporary solution, Engelbret told me that Stephanie would need to he placed in protective custody. She told me that this is normally done by putting a child in a foster home. She deduced that Steph would never accept that. Then she suggested the possibility of placing Steph with distant relatives on either side of the family. Since we had none, she suggested that Ms. Mears wanted Steph psychologically re-evaluated, thus Engelbret recommended putting Steph in protective custody in Aloysious Hall at Conemaugh Memorial. When I suggested Pittsburgh, Engelbret balked, citing that was to far away. At that point, I reluctantly agreed to allow CYS to place Stephanie in Conemaugh. Engelbret then suggested for me to take Stephanie to a physician for a physical examination.
By 1:00 p.m. Monday, Ms. Engelbret called me at my home and asked if I had made the doctor's appointment for Steph. I told her yes, I had made one with Dr. Marianne Hanlon who was Steph's family doctor. I informed Engelbret that Dr. Hanlon was not available that day so a doctor's assistant would be doing the examination.
At 3:30 p.m., I had taken Steph to Hanlon's office for an examination only to find Ms. Frederick sitting there to greet Stephanie. While sitting there, Ms. Frederick was summoned to answer the telephone. A few minutes later, Ms. Frederick announced to the entire waiting room that Kay Engelbret of CYS wanted to talk with me on the phone.
When I took the phone, Engelbret disclosed to me that Ms. Frederick will be transporting Stephanie to Conemaugh immediately after Steph is examined. I told her Stephanie is scared stiff of her mother and you are going to allow her to take her to Conemaugh? Realizing how bizarre and insincere this sounded, Engelbret said, I will call you back in a few minutes. A few minutes later, she called me again and advised me that Shannan Kelly will be meeting us in the doctor's office by 4:00 p.m., and she and Ms. Frederick will take Steph to Conemaugh together.
At approximately 4 00 p.m., Stephanie and I were called into the examination room. Ironically, "Dr. Hanlon" began to question Steph as to what had taken place in the bathtub. Again Stephanie recited the entire incident and Hanlon asked Stephanie what was hurting her. Steph told her that her back and side hurt. Before commencing her examination, Hanlon told me that she was going to call Ms. Frederick and Shannan Kelly into the room while doing the examination of Steph. Meanwhile, I asked Hanlon to go out into the hall to talk. I explained to her that Stephanie was going to Conemaugh immediately following her examination and I can't do that to her or be a part of it. As I was leaving the office, I sent Ms. Kelly and Frederick back to the examination room. Ms. Kelly told me that she would be in contact with me later that evening.
That evening at 10:30 p.m., I had called Conemaugh and was put in touch with Shannan Kelly. Ms. Kelly told me that Stephanie was doing fine and I may call her office in the morning to pick up instructions to get to Conemaugh and a telephone number to call for visitation arrangements. When I called Conemaugh on the morning of April 11th, I was met with a hostile attitude by staff. I was told that my visitation would be arranged around Ms. Frederick's visitation schedule since she had the priority over visitation time. I was requested to make telephone calls each day for available times that I may visit Steph. Needless to say, I thought this to be highly irregular since Stephanie was in protective custody and Ms. Frederick was the named perpetrator of child abuse. Stunning me further, I asked the nurse if I may talk with the doctor before Stephanie is evaluated. I told the nurse that I am concerned that Steph's evaluation would be strictly based on other doctor's reports and there needs to be parental input as to Steph's condition. The nurse told me that the doctors are too busy to talk with me and if I have anything to say I should sign up for family therapy.
Adding insult to injury, I called Conemaugh on April 12th, for my visitation time and found myself being informed by a nurse that Stephanie is being given additional medications, namely Depakote, to control her impulsiveness. This was done without my knowledge or consent. After two weeks at Conemaugh, Stephanie was released from the mental hospital, into the custody of her mother who drove her home alone.
On April 20, 2000, we had our third custody hearing. The witnesses to testify that day were Mr. David Kearns, Mr. Eugene Frederick, Mr. Robert G. Kearns, Jr., CYS caseworker Shannan Kelly, CYS supervisor Kay Engelbret and Mrs. Eileen Delozier- Ms.Frederick's sister.
Mr. Eugene Frederick was brought to the witness stand as a substitute for Ms. Frederick's mother, Lucille Frederick, to whom I subpoenaed to testify concerning the bathtub incident. Judge Carpenter accepted Ms. Frederick's excuse that her mother was too frail to testify and would not bear up to my questioning. Consequently, Carpenter allowed Mr. Frederick to substitute.
In summary, Mr. Frederick began his testimony stating that he knew little about the incident in the bathtub. He said he was not in a good vantage point in Grandma Frederick's house to witness the event but would tell the court what he actually saw or heard. Forty-five minutes later, he was testifying to a detailed and complete blow by blow account of what had taken place that day. Basically, he described and blamed the entire incident on Stephanie's mental illness. Of course, he and the Frederick family were just the victims and innocent by-standers.
Before the hearing commenced, Ms. Mears was overheard asking Shannan Kelly and Ms. Engelbret if Ms. Frederick was investigated for the child abuse allegation. They both said "yes, we did an investigation."
This time around, Ms. Frederick was recalling Shannan Kelly and Kay Engelbret to testify. When she asked that one of them take the witness stand, Ms. Kelly and Ms. Engelbret squabbled as to who should go first. They both looked up at the judge and told him that neither wanted to testify. Carpenter said, one of you will have to take the stand. Engelbret asked, if her and Kelly could go together. Carpenter said, no we can not allow that. I was perceptive that they knew they were beat during the April 5th hearing and it appeared they knew what they would be in for this time around, too.
When Ms. Kelly took the witness stand on direct examination, she methodically described the entire April 9th bathtub beating as Stephanie's own fault. Ms. Frederick was now the abused victim of Stephanie's emotional problems and disobedience. Ms.Kelly concluded that Stephanie was not beaten by her mother, but is a problem child who tells whoppers. The new twist CYS gave to Stephanie's beating allegation was she had been a difficult and out-of-control child that day, who needed to be subdued from hurting herself and her half-sister's baby. Putting icing on the cake, Kelly described Steph's half sister as being trained and certified to restrain people and Steph was only being brought under control. Ms. Kelly also noted that Ms. Frederick was so concerned for Stephanie that she had called Dr. Baker on April 9th to see what should be done with Stephanie. Further testimony revealed that Stephanie's half-sister was in the employ of Blair County Family and Youth Services.
The cross-examination of Ms. Kelly by me went as follows: Did you tell me on April 10th, that Stephanie was being placed at Conemaugh for protective custody? She answered, yes. Didn't you tell me that this could he used as a second opinion and possibly Stephanie could be reduced or taken off the medications? She answered, yes. Who provided Conemaugh with the intake information of Stephanie's emotional problems? She answered, Ms. Frederick did. Did CYS take Stephanie's complaint serious? She answered, yes we did. So serious that you allowed the mother to take her to Conemaugh and admit her? She answered, yes, but you know Stephanie fantasizes and tells stories---just like the story she told us that you beat her up once. But I was investigated on that allegation, wasn't I? She answered, yes. Was Ms. Frederick investigated for the bathtub beating? She answered "no." Is Ms. Frederick going to be investigated? Ms. Kelly answered, not at this time. I told Ms. Kelly that Dr. Hanlon did no examination of Stephanie while I was in the examining room. You just testified that it was only a couple minutes after I left until you went into the examining room with Steph. Did Dr. Hanlon do an examination of Stephanie in your presence? She answered, no. Did Dr. Hanlon do any examination of Stephanie that day? She answered, I don't know.
Kay Engelbret's testimony was a brief confirmation of Shannan Kelly's testimony. Ms.Engelbret also testified that she was in contact with Dr. Baker on April 10th, and Dr. Baker suggested that Stephanie be dispositioned. What had become a predictable pattern during the custody hearings, Ms. Engelbret said Baker agreed that Stephanie should be hospitalized and at this time, it was Conemaugh.
In summary, Ms. Frederick placed her sister Eileen Delozier on the witness stand to give alibi that Stephanie was not removed by knife point on the night Stephanie was abducted. Ms. Delozier also was asked to give her version of the bathtub beating of Stephanie on April 9th.
When I cross-examined Ms. Delozier, her composure collapsed and she claimed that she did not see a knife the night Stephanie was taken away, since Stephanie's half-sister was standing behind the door. I asked Ms. Delozier if she was told by Ms. Frederick or Jandora that a knife was involved that night? She answered yes, I knew Jandora was holding a knife to protect herself.
At the close of the hearing, Mr. Carpenter hinted to Attorney Beverly Mears that she would probably want the people who were involved with Stephanie's treatment at Conemaugh Memorial Hospital to testify. Of course, Mears agreed.
At the May 9, 2000, custody hearing four witnesses chronologically testified in this order: Conemaugh psychologist Denis Kashurba, Conemaugh social worker Kathy Waligora,Conemaugh psychiatrist Rudolfo Medina, and Ms. Lou Ann Frederick.
In summary, Ms. Waligora's testimony was comprised of her family therapy session with Stephanie and her mother and subsequently with me and Stephanie together. She described the meeting with Stephanie and her mother as starting out well when Steph was presented with a gift by her mother. A short time later, Steph became upset and threw things around the room when her mother tried to field questions about the family. She described her meeting with me and Stephanie as going well with Stephanie laying her head on my lap. She observed that Steph was well behaved and only displayed some restlessness because she wanted to see the rest of her paternal family that was waiting outside.
In summary, Ms. Mears tried to develop Dennis Kashurba's testimony through his observations of Stephanie at Conemaugh. He attempted to establish that Stephanie was an angry, hostile girl who needed much psychotropic medications, psychotherapy, and institutionalization. He portrayed Stephanie as a child who was beyond the control of her parents and needed to be placed in a Restricted Treatment Facility. Kashurba explained that this facility (basically a prison) would eventually break Stephanie's will into compliance. This would require more psychotropic medications and long term isolation from family. Kashurba said he derived these conclusions through his personal interactions with Stephanie and background input from Stephanie's mother. He also acknowledged that he never talked with me to develop his recommendations. Mears then questioned Kashurba if input from both parents might have resulted in a different diagnosis. To cover himself Kashurba said he would have came up with the same conclusions, absent any parental input.
When I cross-examined Kashurba, I told him I had before me a drawing that Stephanie drew for Dr. Baker depicting being removed from her home by knife point the night of the marriage breakup. I told Kashurba that Stephanie has also went through numerous other traumatic events in her life. Without saying more, Kashurba said Stephanie could be suffering with Post Trauma Stress Syndrome. I told Kashurba that the record in this case has consistently indicated that it was Stephanie's desire to return home to live with her father. Could Stephanie's behavioral outburst be her method of crying out for someone to listen to her? He answered, it could be. And if the doctors and even this court has denied allowing Stephanie to go home, would that be an emotional stressor in Stephanie's life? He answered, yes.
In summary, Ms. Mears tried to develop Rudolfo Medina's testimony that Stephanie was a troubled girl who needed to be medicated to control her behavioral problems. In doing so, he said that he had given Stephanie Depakote to supplement her established regimen of Prozac and Zyprexa medications. Mears asked if Stephanie's dosages were in the normal range for children her age. Of course, Medina said they were within the normallevels for children. Like Kashurha, Medina was also advocating the Restricted Treatment Facility for Stephanie.
When I cross examined Medina, I asked him if he had ever talked with me or Ms. Frederick? He answered, he did not. I asked Medina where did he acquire his information to come up with his diagnostic conclusions of Stephanie? He answered, from the mother on the admittance form to enter Conemaugh and the other doctors' reports. I asked Medina why he had not talked to me concerning Stephanie? He answered, he would have but wasn't aware I wanted to talk with him. I told him I tried, but I was told you were too busy to talk with me. He answered, he would have met with me, had he known. I asked Medina if he had looked into Stephanie's background to see what could be causing Stephanie's emotional and behavioral difficulties? He answered, no, I treat my patients for the symptoms that I see when entering the hospital. I asked Medina if he was aware Stephanie was involved in a confrontation in a bathtub prior to her admittance to Conemaugh? He said, he read something about it. I asked Medina if the first doctor who became involved with Stephanie had deliberately misdiagnosed the home environment evaluation and treated her accordingly, be guilty of child abuse? He answered, it would. I then asked, if every doctor following that diagnosis would also be guilty of child abuse? He answered, it would be, but why would a doctor do something like that on purpose. I told him there could be many reasons. I asked Mr. Medina if he was aware that Stephanie was kidnapped by her mother at knife point the night of the marriage separation. He answered, he was not but if this had occurred Stephanie could be suffering with Post Trauma Stress Syndrome.
During Ms. Mears redirect examination, she had asked Medina if Stephanie's emotional symptoms could be indicative of a mother suffering from Munchausen by Proxy? Medina said, he didn't think they were.
Again I crossed Medina and asked if he new what Munchausen by Proxy was? He said, he had professional expertise on Munchausen and Munchausen by Proxy. He asked me to define it. After a verbal exchange, I defined what Munchausen by Proxy was. Given that, I asked Medina if he could tell a Munchausen by Proxy mother by observing or talking with them? He answered, no.
Mr. Carpenter then followed up with a question. He asked Medina if Stephanie had from the beginning of this huge record wanted to live with her daddy and was being denied, be a stressor in her life? Medina answered, it would be a significant stressor. I then followed up on Carpenter's question. I asked if Stephanie's alleged suicide gestures or whatever be a result of being forced to live with the mother she hates, and believes the only way out of her situation is to die? He answered, yes, it could be.
In summary, Ms. Frederick's testimony basically took issue with her beliefs that she was abused during our ten year marriage. She claimed that Stephanie was a very abnormal, immature girl who displayed symptoms of mental illness since birth. She tried to establish that Stephanie was unsociable, intellectually deficient, suffered ADD and as a result could not learn academically since entering the pre-school. Ms. Frederick further informed the court that I had suggested at the January 26th conciliation conference, the transcripts of the hearings have been altered.
On May 16th, we had our fifth hearing which was to conclude the custody proceedings. The final two witnesses to testify were Ms. Frederick and Stephanie.
During cross examination, I destroyed Ms. Frederick's conjured up mental illness of Stephanie through testimony, and numerous exhibits, such as report cards and achievement awards from school and church activities.
I asked Ms. Frederick to examine the knife point drawing Stephanie made for Dr. Baker. I caught myself and told Mr. Carpenter that I would like to enter the drawing into the record as exhibit. Carpenter said, Mr. Kearns, I believe that drawing has already been entered into the record by Attorney Speice last year. I told Mr. Carpenter, no, it wasn't. You gave that back to Attorney Speice last year after the February hearings. Carpenter said, OK, you can have the drawing marked as exhibit and if we find it has already been entered into the record we will deal with that later. I then questioned Frederick if that drawing accurately depicted the events on the night of the separation? Frederick answered no, the people were not standing as Stephanie drew them and Jandora (Steph's half-sister) was not holding the knife outward, she was holding it downward.
As the testimony concluded Carpenter suggested that we enter any exhibits that we may have concerning Stephanie. Compliantly, Ms. Mears conducted the exchange of numerous documents that was piled upon the table for the plaintiff and defendant.
Finalizing the hearing, Carpenter interviewed Stephanie with Ms. Mears present in his chambers. After the interview, Ms. Mears called me and Ms. Frederick back into the courtroom. She told us that Judge Carpenter wanted the observers to remain in the hall.
Carpenter asked if either of us wanted to make a closing statement. Ms. Frederick asked that Carpenter consider Stephanie's condition 10 years down the road. I told Carpenter that anything I would say would only capsulate what was presented during the testimony. Carpenter then made a statement that the parties failed to present much of a case, but managed to get a lot of things off their chests that happened over the last three years. I can understand that and that was all right. He went on further to say, that he will have to cut one of the parents from Stephanie's life. Mr. Kearns, you blame your wife for causing your daughter emotional problems and she blames you. I doubt if we would ever know who caused her the problems. Mr. Kearns, you believed that all the doctors involved with Stephanie were in collusion with Ms. Frederick. But yet, several witnesses from Conemaugh who did not know you or Ms. Frederick had no ax to grind with you, saw your daughter as having severe emotional problems. I will have an order out in three weeks with my decision. Consequently, Mr. Carpenter declared the record closed.
To show the uncanny alignment and persuasiveness Ms. Frederick had over the court and professionals involved with this custody case, Ms. Frederick wrote a letter to Shannan Kelly on May 12, 2000, and forwarded it to Ms. Mears on the12th. Ms. Mears conveniently held this letter from me until the closing of the May 16th hearing when the court record was already declared closed and nothing new could be entered into the record.
It wasn't until weeks later, when I was organizing my paperwork from the hearing, that I discovered a hearing statement from the court reporter indicating that as part of Ms. Frederick's case Ms. Kelly was supposed to have entered a confidential envelope into the record on April 20th. What had struck me as odd, Ms. Frederick nor Ms. Kelly entered anything into the record that day as the statement implied. Putting my thoughts together, I realized the confidential envelope was purported to contain the casework sheets that CYS was supposed to have delivered to Carpenter on April 6th. What was more bizarre, the confidential envelope was made to appear as being entered as defendant's exhibit on April 20th, which contained a letter from Dr. Hanlon. When I found the alleged letter, it was Stephanie's medical report from Dr. Hanlon detailing her physical examination of Stephanie on April 10th,.
On May 17th, I went to the court reporters office and requested that Christa Miloro and Sally Zeek produce the transcripts of the hearings. It was my intention to take the transcripts to the Attorney General's Office and the news media. Ms. Miloro and Ms. Zeek advised me that they were too busy typing the transcripts from a homicide case to make my transcripts. They said I would be notified at a later date when they would start them.
On June 8th, I again went to Christa Miloro and asked if she had started any of the hearing transcripts. She said no, I am still working on the homicide trial transcripts. I asked her if she could give me a rough guess when they will be started. She said, I don't know when I can get to them.
On June 20th, I had a hearing before Mr. Carpenter that resulted from the school district's desire to place Stephanie in a Partial Hospital Program for the summer. Ms. Mears believed that Stephanie would highly benefit from this program. My argument was Stephanie receives more benefits by being home with her family and cousins that she was raised with. The witnesses to testify that day were subpoenaed as common witnesses and listed as Laura Chandler PHP administrator, Ms Reimer, and Altoona Area School District psychologist Carol Hewit.
Before any testimony was taken, Carpenter advised us this was a narrow issue and custody matters will not be raised since the custody record is closed. In summary, Ms. Mears went right to work using Ms. Chandler to sell the court this rainbow picture howwell the PHP works and how well Stephanie was responding to it. Ms. Mears then went on the attack to cite differences in the way Stephanie performed in the program with the respective parents' custody schedule. Of course, it was pointed out that Stephanie sleeps more when with me. Ms. Chandler then gave a highly exaggerated recollection of my first meeting with her as me being demanding.
Ms. Chandler described how Stephanie enjoyed the PHP program and looked forward to getting on and off the van each day, she was also becoming more sociable and was interacting with other kids. She described how the children in the program are gently punished when misbehaving by taking their scholar dollar rewards from them. Ms. Chandler took credit that Stephanie had quit pulling her hair out since entering the program. Ms. Chandler portrayed this program as a dedicated public service designed to help these emotionally disturbed children be productive citizens in society. Ms. Chandler also went through a list of emotional symptoms that they observed in Stephanie while being in the PHP program. The list included: picking at scabs, eye lids, wore hat to cover bald spot, attention seeking, defiant, and angry outbursts now and then. (It should be noted these are symptoms of children being emotionally abused). Ms. Chandler also testified that Dr. Bennet, the program's psychiatrist was looking into Stephanie's problems as being that of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome.
In cross-examination, my strategy was to make the PHP program appear as what it is, a business to make money. I asked, Ms. Chandler, how many children are in the program free of charge? Her answer was, none. I asked, Ms. Chandler, what the percentage of the program's success was in curing these children's emotional problems? She didn't have any idea. I asked what the program does to make these children happy? She answered, we don't try to make them happy, we try to make them adjust. I asked if being happy wasn't a part of healing? She guessed it was. I asked what the program has better to offer Stephanie than being home with a family who loves her and she's happy? She answered, we have trained professionals. I asked Chandler if the program was taking credit for Stephanie not pulling her hair out? She answered, I didn't say that. I asked Ms. Chandler if the program was a school setting? She answered, it is similar in structure. I asked, Ms. Chandler, is there an isolation room to punish children? She answered, yes, we have one but I don't like calling it that. I asked, Ms. Chandler, when children give reports of being abused, how is this dealt with? She answered, that staff will determine the validity and if there are indications of abuse, CYS would be called in. I asked where the program received it's input information pertaining to Stephanie's historical emotional difficulties? She answered, from Ms. Frederick. Because Ms. Chandler couldn't substantiate the worthiness of her PHP program for Stephanie, she became angry with my questions and appeared she was going to walk off of the witness stand. She was offended that I was attacking her program and she wasn't going to argue about it.
The court then asked Ms. Mears to present her next witness. Ms. Mears asked to have a few seconds so that she could talk with her witnesses in the hall. When she returned, she said she had no further witnesses.
Mr. Carpenter asked what witnesses I would like to present. Accordingly, I called Ms.Diane Beiswenger to the stand. I asked Diane to describe the first day that Stephanie entered the PHP program. Diane described the event as being asked by the Baker school to come to the school and assist Stephanie off to the PHP program for the first day. Diane explained that Stephanie was happy to see us and she entered the school van to leave, without difficulty. I asked Diane to describe what she observed in Stephanie after returning home from the PHP program the second day. Diane said she was at my home when Stephanie got off the van. She put her arm around Steph to give her a hug and Stephanie said her shoulder hurt. Diane said she asked her the reason. Stephanie said, Ms. Reimer and her argued. Stephanie said, Ms.Reimer called in a school guard and forced Stephanie onto the PHP van by twisting her arm behind her back.
I then called Mr. David Kearns to testify as to what he observed in Stephanie since being placed in the School District's Individualized Educational Program. Mr. Carpenter stopped my questioning, asking what this had to do with the PHP program. I told Carpenter it is all part of the IEP program. Carpenter wanted to know where my questioning was going? I told him more child abuse! He told Dave to proceed and then suddenly stopped Dave, saying he wasn't going to allow it. Mr. Carpenter closed the hearing citing he would allow Stephanie to remain in the program for now until he madehis pending custody ruling. He warned that he was definitely going to remove Stephanie from one of the parents life. He reasoned the program may help Stephanie through this serious custody change. Mr. Carpenter also directed Ms. Mears to send him a letter of custody recommendation. Carpenter told Mears it doesn't have to be one, you can send several, if you wish.
On June 23, I had an appointment to see Dr. Bennet at the PHP building. Dr. Bennet asked me what I thought was causing Stephanie's emotional problems. I told Dr. Bennet that Ms. Chandler testified that you were looking at Post Trauma Stress Syndrome as a possible cause for Stephanie's emotional difficulties. He answered, that he was considering it as a possibility. I told him that I agree with that thinking, because Stephanie had gone through numerous traumatic events in her life since November 1996. I told him, I didn't want to elaborate on those events, because I would rather be develop his conclusions through Stephanie. Dr. Bennet said, your daughter is not mentally ill why is she on these medications? I answered, because her mother wants her on them. He then asked, why is she in this PHP program? Dr. Bennet said he has been observing Stephanie playing games during recreation periods and had talked with her. He saw Stephanie as a polite, young lady. I told Dr. Bennet that Stephanie was always a nice girl and she is very coordinated at athletic events, in spite of her weight gain. Dr. Bennet said, he noticed that.
Dr. Bennet said, I have heard from someone that your belief is Stephanie fantasizes a lot as a means of escaping her problems. He said, I agree with you that is what she does it for. He said, Stephanie is not immature. She is just innocent and not knowledgeable on worldly things. You probably wanted to raise her that way. I agreed.
Dr. Bennet said it would be helpful to him if I could give him some specifics of the traumatic events Stephanie went through. I told him I hate to do that, but divorce is traumatic for children. He said yes, but they eventually overcome it, can you be more specific? I said, Stephanie was removed by knife point on the night of the marriage breakup. Stephanie was then kept away from my family with no means of communication. She was dragged out in the middle of the evening and put in a mental institution. She has been told by her mother that she will never see me again. And just recently she was beat up in a bathtub by her mother and half-sister and that is how she ended up in Conemaugh.
Dr. Bennet said, he wants to have Stephanie off the medications by the end of summer. I told him he would have a hard time convincing Stephanie's mother. He said, you know her better than anyone, how can we get her to agree to take her off the medications? I told him, you won't. He suggested that he has his ways of doing it. I told him, that would be great.
On July 8th, I received a copy of Ms. Mears' letter dated June 26th, outlining her custody recommendation that she sent to Carpenter. Her letter had Ms. Frederick and I running equal in our beliefs and concerns regarding Stephanie's well being. We both love Stephanie very much. We were both involved with her education and neither one of us would deliberately hurt Stephanie. This I viewed as her opinions. However, Mears became flagrantly deceptive when she wrote two outright lies. First, she said Ms.Frederick and I were investigated by Children and Youth Services and neither were found to have abused Stephanie. The second lie stated that I would not cooperate with Stephanie's mental health care should I have custody. In both cases, she was well aware that testimony disclosed that (1) CYS did no investigation of the mother and (2) her own cross examination of me revealed I would cooperate in any impartially administered mental health care treatment of Stephanie until she is emotionally stabilized and we get to the bottom of what caused her problems in the first place.
Ms. Mears further wrote that Stephanie is especially attached to the paternal family and readily admits she prefers to live with her father. However, Ms. Mears said Stephanie does not need contact with each family. Wherefore, the custody needs to be limited to one parent having primary custody and the other limited to every other weekend visits, at most . When my brother and I read Ms. Mears' recommendation and saw it was so deceptive, we knew Carpenter was going to give Stephanie to Ms. Frederick.
On July 15th, I received an order from Judge Carpenter hand delivered via the Sheriff department that placed the custody of Stephanie with her mother. Carpenter totally removed me from Stephanie's life with the exception of a one hour supervised visit with my daughter per week. Carpenter noted that if I was suspected of causing my daughter any emotional difficulties during these visits, I would be taken from her life completely. In contradiction to what Carpenter had said at the June 20th hearing, he incorporated testimony from this hearing into his custody ruling. Given the gun Carpenter had at my head and considering the damage his order had done to Stephanie, I painfully chose not to pursue that visitation scheme. I didn't want to cause Stephanie more damage than the order had already done. Carpenter had also instructed Ms. Mears to make arrangements for this supervised visitation the very first week of his order. In making this vicious order, Mr. Carpenter admitted he was going to cause Stephanie compounding emotional problems, but Ms. Frederick could deal with these through the mental health facilities. Carpenter felt Stephanie's happiness living with me would only be short term, he had to look at long term which could only be accomplished through mental health care treatment and mental institutions that the mother was willing to provide.
It wasn't until after my mother passed away on July 27th, that Mears attempted to make any contact with me. On July 28th, Ms. Mears called my sister to ask what my opinion might be on Stephanie attending her grandmother's funeral. It wasn't until two weeks after I filed my appeal to Superior Court on August 9th, that Mears sent a letter advising me of my court ordered right to see my daughter for an hour a week.
On July 28th, I again approached Christa Miloro and asked when I could expect to have the transcripts of my hearing. As before, she said they were not started since she was still was working on the homicide case transcript. At this point, I told her I would need them for an appeal to Superior Court.
On August 7th, I received a letter from CYS telling me that Karalyn Smeltzer was the new case worker assigned to Stephanie's case. I was told later that Shannan Kelly quit CYS.
As indicated, I filed an appeal to Superior Court on August 9th, and sent a request for transcripts to Christa Miloro and Sally Zeek.
On August 18th, I received a telephone call from Christa Miloro advising me that she had only completed a partial transcript of the April 6th hearing. She also informed me that she resigned her position with Carpenter's office this day. The production of my transcripts would be assigned to a new girl. To receive the partial transcript I was told to send Sally Zeek $12.90 and she would see that I got the transcript.
On or about September 4th, I received Christa Miloro's partial transcript and perused through Dr. Eugene Polmueller's testimony. Within a few minutes, I discovered that Dr. Polmueller's answer admitting that Stephanie's emotional symptoms were indicative of being emotionally abused was modified to appear as a statement by me, and not my question to which Polmueller answered, yes. As I read back and forth through the transcript I found other major material errors in Polmueller's testimony. I also found Carpenter's statement about seeing the system hasn't treated me fairly was deleted. From my recollection of the hearing, I rated this particular transcript to be about 85% accurate.
Given my findings, I called Sally Zeek to inform her of the errors and there will need to be transcript corrections. Ms. Zeek asked, what kind of errors? I told her, material and factual errors. Ms. Zeek said, she doesn't know what can be done about it because that transcript was Christa Miloro's work and she quit. Passing that off, Ms. Zeek asked me, if I would like each transcript as they are completed or all at once when done? I told her, I would take them when they are all done.
As the September 24th deadline approached to have my case record transmitted to Superior Court, I went to the courthouse and asked Sally Zeek if we were going to make the 24th deadline. Ms. Zeek said, I don't think so, I am busy. My dad just died, and we're not going to make that deadline. Ms. Zeek flippantly said, she really never received an order to do the transcripts, other than the letter I sent them. I told Ms. Zeek, that a transcript of my case from last February 1999, had been altered and now the first forty pages that Christa Miloro just did has been changed. Zeek asked if any of hers were messed with? I told her, I would have to review them again. I asked Ms. Zeek, if it wasn't procedural to notify me before transcripts are filed with the prothonotary? And isn't there a five day period to determine their accuracy in case they need corrected? She answered, we don't do that in civil cases. Ms. Zeek told me, if I would pencil mark the transcript errors, she would be glad to check out the mistakes with the hearing audio tapes. I agreed and indicated I would do that. As I was leaving, Ms. Zeek said, she would contact me when the transcripts are docketed.
Since it was my understanding that the Superior Court only excepts valid excuses for a record being delinquent, I believed Ms. Zeek's excuse could not meet the parameters of validity. On or about October 17th, Mr. Carpenter notified Superior Court that he had not been fully staffed with court reporters since around August 17th. Given that, he reasoned my hearing transcripts were a long term typing project that would have to be prioritized according to the court reporters' work load.
On or about December 18th, I sent a letter to Sally Zeek pleading for her to produce my hearing transcript of April 20th. I was concerned for the time span that I haven't seen my daughter and suggested if I could have that particular transcript I would contact the United States Justice Department for help. On December 19th, I received a telephone call from Sally Zeek telling me the transcript I requested was recently completed by Brenda Prosser, Christa Miloro's replacement. She said I may pick it up along with the second half of the April 6th hearing the next day.
On December 20th, my brother and I went to the courthouse and gave Brenda Prosser the $86.10 for the two transcripts. I asked Ms. Prosser, if Carpenter ever had that transcript in his possession. She said no, I kept that transcript locked up in my file cabinet at all times. It never left my possession until I filed it in the prothonotary's office. When we left her office, we stopped in the stairwell and paged directly to Shannan Kelly's testimony in cross-examination. In brief, new dialog now appeared in the record with Ms. Kelly confirming that Stephanie was examined by Dr. Hanlon. New dialogue now has me asking Ms. Kelly how long it had taken Dr. Hanlon to examine Steph. New dialogue has been added with Ms. Kelly denying that Stephanie needed to be placed in protective custody. Removed from the transcript was Ms. Kelly recommending foster care for Stephanie. When we returned home, further review of the testimony found the transcript to include new and expanded cross-examination of Ms. Kelly by Attorney Mears. Reading this part of the transcript enlightened us as to why it was staged to appear Ms. Frederick entered into exhibit on April 20th, a letter by Dr. Hanlon explaining her examination of Stephanie on April 10th.
I also discovered that where Eileen Delozier had admitted a knife was involved the night Stephanie was removed from the marital residence, was deleted. Testimony of Eugene Frederick was also altered. Where he had said he didn't see or know much about the bathtub beating of Stephanie on April 9th, was deleted. From my recollection of the April 20th hearing, I would rate the transcript to be about 65% accurate.
Within minutes after returning home I telephoned Mr. Carpenter's office and asked to speak with Brenda Prosser or Sally Zeek. I was put in touch with Ms. Zeek and I told her I had just picked up the transcripts from Ms. Prosser and I found numerous material errors in the transcription (big time errors). Ms. Zeek gave me the impression she was concerned with my discovery. I asked Ms. Zeek what it will take to disclose the audio tapes of the hearing, a court order? She told me to hang on the telephone and she would see what can be done. A few minutes later, Mr. Carpenter's secretary broke in and asked if I could wait a few more minutes. When Ms. Zeek took the phone again I detected a new attitude and demeanor. All of the sudden, she had no idea what could be done about the alleged transcript errors. It was now her opinion that the transcripts were accurately transcribed from the audio tapes and there was no way the audio tapes can be disclosed. Never, ever, heard of anything like this, she said. She told me that, if I believe there are errors I should file something with the court. I said, do you mean a petition to disclose the hearing tapes? "No, no," she answered, that can't be done, you can't hear the tapes. I told Ms. Zeek that maybe we can make some special exception in this case. I hung up telling her that I would file something.
On December 21, 2000, I wrote a letter to the Blair County Prothonotary's office, requesting that my case file record not be transmitted to Superior Court until the hearing transcripts be corrected pursuant to the rules of appellate procedure.
On December 29th, my dad went to the courthouse and talked with Sally Zeek. She told my dad that, she feels bad about the transcript errors, but has no idea how they could be tampered with. She said, she works for Mr. Carpenter. He is her boss. She said, she asked Carpenter about disclosing the audio tapes and he told her that he has never heard of anything like that, it's never been done. Dad told me that Ms. Zeek was inquisitive of how I knew the transcripts contained errors when it was only a matter of minutes that I telephoned her after leaving the courthouse. Dad informed her, he knows what he is looking for. The alterations are mostly done on CYS's testimony and the doctors. She reassured dad if I would pencil mark the transcript errors, she would be glad to check them out herself with the tapes.
On January 9th, 2001, I was contacted by Judge Carpenter's office notifying me that the transcripts of the remaining hearings were completed. On January 11th, I acquired those transcripts and soon discovered that the transcribed testimony was sabotaged. Like their predecessors, the transcripts were about 65% accurate. Primarily the testimonies from Children and Youth Services', the psychiatrists', and the psychologists' who testified in my custody hearings, were heavily targeted for tampering.
On January 11th, my brother and I went to the Blair County Court's prothonotary's office to review my custody case file. After examining the mountain of documents we discovered two photographs that were entered into the record were missing. One depicted my step-daughter in a sexually oriented pose and the other depicting my step-daughter wielding a butcher knife in a threatening pose. Both photographs were damaging to my wife, CYS and the mental health care providers.
On January 11th, I filed a Petition with the Blair County Court requesting that the transcripts be corrected and the hearing audio tapes of the hearing be disclosed to accomplish this. On January 17th, Judge Carpenter denied the disclosure of the audio tapes and directed that the case record be immediately forwarded to Superior Court with no corrections to be made to the transcripts.
Living this nightmare, I often ask myself what the motive might be that would cause a Blair County Court judge to alter public records and fabricate and destroy evidence of a judicial proceeding at the expense of a child's life. Why would he overlook the violent kidnapping of a child, the ensuing criminal conspiracy, judicial misconduct, systematic child abuse, CYS falsifying investigations, medical fraud, and fraudulently incarcerating a child in mental institutions?
In answering my own question to a motive why a judge would commit a crime of this nature brings to mind that: He might be burning his bridges to cover up his own negligence in the handling of this custody case. He may owe favors to affluent people, such as doctors, lawyers, or another judge who had been involved with this case. Several large mental health care institutions may offer pecuniary gratitude for him looking the other way.
He could have been threatened with professional suicide or physical harm if he doesn't fulfill the wishes of people in higher authority. He could be severely mentally ill and felt a need to retaliate against me for my persistence to change the custody system.
He could be protecting Blair County from a potential lawsuit instigated by Children and Youth Services' failure to protect a child from an abusive mother and a sick psychologist (Dr. Baker). He may just be biased against men winning custody of their children.