------------------------------------------------------------------- F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. (Fight Against Coercive Tactics Network, Incorporated) a non-profit computer bulletin board and electronic library 601 16th St. #C-217 Golden, Colorado 80401 USA BBS 303 530-1942 FAX 303 530-2950 Office 303 473-0111 This document is part of an electronic lending library and preservational electronic archive. F.A.C.T.Net does not sell documents, it only lends them according to the terms of your library cardholder agreement with F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. ===================================================================== A MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY SO THAT MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELING COULD BE PROVIDED TO TWO MINOR CHILDREN You are reading the introduction to a set of related documents about a 1993 Scientology-related child custody case. This case was NOT an attempt to acquire sole custody. It came four years AFTER the divorce. The issue was legal authority to obtain professional mental health counseling for two minor children whose ages were 11 and 14 when the original motion was filed. NOTE: The "plaintiff / respondent" terminology appears reversed in these documents, That is because the mother was plaintiff in the original divorce proceedings and the terminology from that case has been used in the same way ever since. Remember: Plaintiff: The Scientologist mother who is actually the "defendant" in this action. Respondent: The former Scientologist father who brought the present action to modify custody. The successful legal strategy in this case relied upon a court-ordered custody evaluation by court-appointed mental health professionals. The court listened to the people it had appointed, and that was decisive. At the final hearing before a judge, the only witness for respondent (other than respondent himself) was the evaluator. Plaintiff produced a Scientologist to testify about how Scientology could help with the problems the evaluators had identified. The respondent's witness was the more credible (understatement, joke). Although they were not needed, respondent had other witnesses available to handle points that might come up in cross examination. This action cost approximately $6,000 of which about half was legal fees and the other half was the evaluation and the evaluator's time to testify in court. From start to finish it took almost exactly a year. Ordering a professional evaluation is a safe, normal, no-risk action for the court. Respondent's petition asking that the court do what it normally would do anyway stood a good chance of success. The court did what it normally does. Later in the case, when respondent asked for a protective order with regard to discovery, his request was denied by the court. Financial disclosure is USUAL in custody cases and the court did what it normally does. Even before the final ruling and the start of professional counseling, the process of the evaluation itself gave the kids opportunity to see for themselves that "psychs" are not the evil beings portrayed by Scientology. They saw for themselves that nobody tried to drug them. Before the evaluation, respondent gave the evaluators a collection of materials about cults, kids and cults, and Scientology in particular. He does not know if they ever read that material, but respondent believes that the evaluators got the picture and then bent over backwards to display impartiality (on peripheral issues) in their report so that they could support him more strongly (on key issues) without appearing biased. In fact, the final recommendations were indeed what respondent was seeking. The court ordered mental health counseling for the children but declined to make any formal change in custody. Just as "the court did what the court does," likewise the court opted for the least possible change that would achieve the basic result. The kids are now getting competent help and that was the point. Respondent believes that with this precedent it would be fairly open-and-shut if he had to go back to court on any related issue such as education or other health concerns -- and that therefore he probably won't have to. CHRONOLOGY Names have been removed to protect confidentiality. Identifying information has been replaced with substitutes in brackets, such as [boy], [girl], [father], [mother], [city], etc. The documents which make up this case (except discovery) are included in the file you are now reading. Each document is listed below with a filename followed by a brief description of the document. Use your word processor's "search" feature to search on the filename. That will position you at the beginniing of that document. All document names begin with the five characters "CUST1." They are then in sequence alphabetically a-w. For example, CUST1A, CUST1B, CUST1C, and so on. The fifth character is the numeral "one," not the letter "el." The final (sixth) characters are all alphabetic -- not numbers. The letter "el" is not the numeral "one." The letter "oh" is not the numeral "zero." Please watch your typing when you search for these documents in the text. Thumbnail Sketch of the Situation: For four years since the divorce there had been a tacit agreement to "not rock the boat." Neither party made an issue of Scientology with the kids, but it was there, pro and con, in their daily lives. Their mother and stepfather are on staff at a Scientology mission and their father is actively involved in cult awareness educational activities. The "ignore it" approach was not working any more as the kids got older. [father] was looking for a way to move beyond the "ignore it" approach when [mother] handed him an opportunity. Documents in the Case: January 15, 1993 CUST1A.TXT The earliest document is a letter from [mother] to [father] dated January 15, 1993 in which she acknowledges "stress" in the kids' lives which "needs to be handled." She attributes the stress to [father]'s "continued vocal antagonism toward Scientology" and requests a mediation session. A mediation session was held in early February, 1993, at which [father] strongly agreed about "stress" in the kids' lives which "needs to be handled" and proposed a psychologist who had been recommended by one of [girl]'s former teachers. [mother] refused the proposed solution and had no concrete alternative proposal. February 22, 1993 CUST1AA.TXT Ineffective letter from [father] to [mother] after mediation had failed and before filing the motion for modification of custody. March 24, 1993 CUST1B.TXT [father] filed a motion for modification of custody, requesting decision-making authority in the specific areas of health care, religious upbringing, and education. No change in visitation or residence was proposed. April 6, 1993 CUST1C.TXT The court scheduled a hearing on [father]'s motion to modify custody for the following October. April 20, 1993 CUST1D.TXT Hoping to speed things up, [father] filed a MOTION FOR COURT TO APPOINT A LICENSED PSYCHOLOGIST TO CONDUCT MENTAL HEALTH EXAMINATION OF MINOR CHILDREN. May 4, 1993 CUST1E.TXT [mother] replies to [father]'s motion for mental health examination. May 11, 1993 CUST1F.TXT [father] replies to [mother]'s reply. May 20, 1993 CUST1G.TXT [mother] changes attorney. The new attorney has done work for other Scientologists (the old one had not) but insofar as is known, he is not a member himself. (This document is not included below.) June 4, 1993 CUST1H.TXT [father] asks the court for time on the court's emergency docket to expedite handling of the motion to appoint mental health professionals June 6, 1993 CUST1I.TXT The court orders a mental health evaluation pursuant to [father]'s motion. This makes expedited handling moot. June 7, 1993 CUST1J.TXT [mother]'s objection to [father]'s request for emergency hearing (now moot). June 18, 1993 CUST1K.TXT The court schedules a hearing on the Motion to Modify Custody for November 29, 1993. June 25, 1993 CUST1L.TXT In compliance with the court's order of June 6, the attorneys agree on mental health professionals who they know will be acceptable to the court. Stipulations are signed and submitted to the court. The evaluators are notified that they are chosen. June 30, 1993 CUST1M.TXT [father]'s check for $2,000 retainer is sent by his attorney to the two individuals who will conduct the evaluation. July 9, 1993 CUST1N.TXT [father] receives 10-page discovery request about financial and business matters. (not included below) July 13, 1993 CUST1O.TXT The court approves the parties' stipulation of mental health professionals and appoints the agreed-upon persons to conduct the evaluation. August 9, 1993 CUST1P.TXT [father]'s objection to the detailed interrogatories and simultaneous MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER. This motion has several exhibits (not included in this text) concerning Scientology's use of information obtained in discovery for harassment. EXHIBIT 1 - Statement by Lawrence Wollersheim | Filename: CUST1E1.TXT EXHIBIT 2 - Statement by Steve Fishman | Filename: CUST1E2.TXT EXHIBIT 3 - Ofshe "Brief Description of Scn" | Filename: CUST1E3.TXT August 16, 1993 CUST1Q.TXT [mother]'s response to Motion for Protective Order August 27, 1993 CUST1R.TXT Court orders father to comply with discovery request adding that financial information "...use shall be restricted to litigation only." [The Mental Health Evaluation proceeded through September and October, 1993, with the final sessions and recommendations at the beginning of November.] !!! EXHIBIT 4 - THE EVALUATORS' REPORT !!!!!!!!!! | Filename: CUST1E4.TXT EXHIBIT 5 - Statements by two people who knew the kids in early childhood about the effect of the Scientology environment | Filename: CUST1E5.TXT October 28, 1993 CUST1S.TXT [father] sends similarly detailed discovery request to [mother]. (not included in this text) November 19, 1993 CUST1T.TXT Evaluator is served a subponea to appear at the hearing scheduled for November 29, 1993. [The hearing was held on December 1. A transcript has not been obtained. It will be needed to show the arguments that were actually used before the court, for example in rebuttal to exhibit 6.] EXHIBIT 6 - Statement by Scn witness | Filename: CUST1E6.TXT EXHIBIT 7 - When we get a transcript, it will go on the system with filename - | Filename: CUST1E7.TXT December 2, 1993 CUST1U.TXT The court's final Findings and Order Regarding Response to Motion to Modify Joint Custody. Psychotherapy is ordered and the parties have until December 29 to agree on a psychotherapist. A hearing is set for December 29 in case the court has to decide. December 23, 1993 CUST1V.TXT "Stipulation Regarding Psychotherapist." The parties agreed before the court's deadline. January 26, 1994 CUST1W.TXT The signed stipulations are accepted and adopted as an Order of the Court. [Counseling began in January, 1994 with results predictable from the evaluation report: [boy] is engaged and participating with obvious benefit, [girl] is more withdrawn and evasive, taking longer. Both are doing well and the process continues.] =================================================================== CUST1A.TXT 15 January 1993 Dear [respondent], I have asked Christine Coates to mediate in a discussion to resolve two points of contention. The first of these points is the care of the children while I am out of town. I will be traveling to Los Angeles this year to get more Scientology training and considering the upsets of the past, it would be best to decide in advance how the needs of the children can best be met during my absence. The second issue concerns your continued and vocal antagonism towards Scientology. With the children growing older and becoming more aware of their environment, they are quite aware that your position is in direct opposition to mine and I feel that the stress they feel as a result of this dissention is not good for their well-being. This situation needs to be addressed. Christine is available February 2 or February 3 in the afternoons. I have asked her to hold these times open and you may call her directly to confirm the time that is most convenient for Yours truly, [mother] =================================================================== CUST1AA.TXT Feb 22, 1993 Dear [mother] and [stepfather], The only real point of contention between us appears to be Scientology, so it might be better for us to speak to the issue as a last-ditch effort before asking the court to intervene -- which otherwise I see as inevitable. Scientology is not harmless, it is not helpful, it is not beneficial. I am not talking about religious beliefs, but about group practices vis-a-vis individual participants. The group tricks which make it possible and necessary to go on believing you have experienced "case gain" are terribly damaging to a person's actual ability and mental health. I find it odd that nearly anyone who has reason to be concerned knows more about Scientology than its own members. The thought control (mostly via group-learned self-censorship) is that effective. I remember it well. It is very difficult to admit that you have been defrauded and have missed so much of life. I would not disturb the status quo in so painful a way except for the kids. The situation jeopardizes them, and that's where I must draw a line. I have seen [friend of the kids living with Scientologist mother in Florida]. This is child abuse -- not physical abuse or neglect, but abuse of the person. Scientology is lies. From the lies about Hubbard's exploits as a young man to the lies about "research" to the lies about psychology to the lies about what Scientology actually accomplishes... During my own recovery period, I adopted the rule of thumb that if Scientology said something, then the opposite was the truth. As I learned more, I found that rule had worked pretty well. How one comes to believe the lies so deeply makes a very interesting story. It's no mystery, just a very interesting story. It can be understood. The best analogy I know is the fanatical loyalty of a battered woman to her abuser. I understand that from "within the bubble" this all appears totally wrongheaded. In nearly two decades I never found a way to communicate through that bubble except on neutral topics unrelated to Scientology. Remember the study tapes, and all those words about observing for yourself instead of relying on public opinion or Authority? Can you understand that in two decades I have never found a graduate of "Study Tech" who knew anything BUT the lies about Hubbard's time in the Navy? How can this be? Doesn't this tell you anything? The truth is the opposite of what Scientology says. The "shore story" is on the Study Tapes. It makes great PR, it brings in the "raw meat," it's what we want to hear. But the actual result is quite different. You've learned Study Tech. What actually was Hubbard's relationship with Aleister Crowley, and where did "affirmations" fit in the scheme of things that became Scientology? What resistances to finding out can you observe within yourself? How, when and where did you learn to define the ambiguous subjective states which predictably result from hypnotic exercises like TRs or auditing (or chanting, fasting, etc...) as meaning that you were "more in present time" or had heightened awareness or perception, or were perceiving "past-life events?" What is actually known about the ambiguous subjective states which cults produce and covertly define for their own purposes? How is "certainty" produced? But it is not my place to try and convince you of anything. I do agree that your beliefs are your business, and freely so. The consequences of actions which affect the kids are another matter. I had some trouble in the mediation grasping what your proposed solution was. It seemed like you had nothing concrete to propose, beyond me just not being who I am, or that I somehow magically hide from these kids who know me so well. Then I realized that you were proposing that I do exactly what I have been doing for the past four years. I have been avoiding discussion of Scientology or matters that might be connected to Scientology. I have been keeping all printed or other materials relevant to the topic as out of sight as possible in a small house. Above all, we have not discussed the actual issues. The kids are growing up. They are starting to raise the issues and ask questions. The days of polite silence are over whether you or I like it or not. In other words, I intend to stop withholding myself from the kids, not do it more. A very wonderful lady who I much respect, Dr. Margaret Singer, has more than 40 years experience working with cult survivors. She argues that persons affected by cults are often the best and brightest (not "nuts"), and traditional psychotherapy is not what they need when they get out. They need INFORMATION. How did this thing happen to me? Is there something wrong with me? etc. etc. Experience shows that when people understand how they were trapped and what really was going on (manipulated loyalties, etc.) they can sort it out just fine on their own and regain the neglected path of their own personal growth. Part of the problem in the first place is deception (Hubbard's war record, for example, or the assertion that Church money wasn't going to him personally, or the ignorant assertion that niacin and exercise remove toxins from the body...). Your proposal at the mediation suggests that I should stand by and knowingly let the kids walk blindly down this primrose path. I will not. If this requires that the court modify custody as regards religious training and medical attention, then so be it. I will get a selection of dates for a second mediation session at which we can determine our next move and whether legal proceedings will be required. My intention is to get the kids started with a qualified therapist as quickly as I can legally do so, for help in handling some of the issues to which you refer, and others. I do not intend to "deprogram" or otherwise force our issues onto the kids, but when asked, I will no longer hold back in answering their questions, but will do so truthfully and completely with the best information available to me. As to the extent and nature of the harm done by cult participation, I encourage you to do your own homework and find out for yourself. (signed) [father] =================================================================== CUST1B.TXT DISTRICT COURT, [city] COUNTY, [state] Case No. 87-DR-2467 MOTION TO MODIFY CUSTODY In re the Marriage of: [mother] [last name], Petitioner, and [respondent], [last name], Respondent. COMES NOW Respondent, by and through his attorneys, Day and Sackheim, by Michael C. Morphew, and pursuant to C.R.S.  14-10-131.5 moves that this Court modify, in a limited manner, custody herein. In support thereof, Respondent states: 1. This Court entered a Decree of Dissolution of Marriage on March 29, 1988. 2. The Decree of Dissolution of Marriage incorporated therein as Exhibit A the parties' Separation Agreement. Pursuant to said Separation Agreement and Decree, the parties were awarded joint custody of their two children, [boy], born September 27, 1978, and [girl], born October 9, 1981. At the time of the Dissolution, [boy] was ten-years-old and [girl] was seven-years-old. 3. For several years, which included the birth of both children, both Respondent and Petitioner were associated with the cult of Scientology which, in Respondent's opinion, was highly detrimental to his ability to relate to the children. In 1986 the Respondent saw the ultimate absurdity of Scientology, and finally realized that Scientology was a totally worthless waste of time and money, and detrimental to his mental health and ability. The Respondent then "escaped" from this group. The Petitioner is still a member of this group, and Respondent believes that Petitioner filed the dissolution of marriage action because, in part, "she didn't want to be married to the Respondent if the Respondent was not a Scientologist." 4. Since the date the parties' marriage was dissolved, the children, consistent with the provisions of Exhibit A, have resided equally with each parent. As they have grown older, they have become increasingly aware of the significant polarization of their parents regarding Scientology. Scientology policy requires that a group member "disconnect" from (i.e. have no connection with) anyone labelled a "suppressive person" by the cult. In 1992, the Respondent was so labelled by the cult. The Petitioner is, by [city] District Court Civil Action No. 87-DR-2467 In re marriage of.- [last name] MOTION TO MODIFY CUSTODY Page 2 virtue of her adherence to Scientology, subject to that policy, as would be the children if they became adherents of the cult. 5. On January 15, 1993, the Petitioner, by correspondence, stated to the Respondent: "The second concerns your continued and vocal antagonism towards Scientology. With the children growing older and becoming more aware of their environment, they are quite aware that your position is in direct opposition to mine and I feel that the stress they feel as a result of this dissension is not good for their well being. This situation needs to be addressed." The Respondent could not agree more with the concerns expressed by the Petitioner in her letter to him. In fact, the Respondent agreed at the request of the Petitioner to mediate. Mediation was a failure. 6. The cult of Scientology believes that the mental and physical health of individuals can be treated and "cured" through what is referred to as "auditing." "Auditing" is a method whereby a troubled individual is connected to an amateurish polygraph-like device, and the auditor directs the individual to re-live the real or imagined incidents related to the problem. Scientology also claims expertise in other fields, such as education and business management, and similarly attempts to position the cult in place of mainstream professionals. 7. Sciento!ogists are taught that "psychiatry kills" and that mental health professionals cannot provide help to persons such as the children, [boy] and [girl]. 8. Respondent deeply believes that the stress being experienced by the children is significantly impairing their emotional development and must be addressed through mental health counseling and therapy. To this the Petitioner will not agree and responds to the Respondent's requests by stating it is "not necessary." Petitioner's statements that counseling and therapy are "not necessary" fly in the face of her concerns expressed by her January 15, 1993, correspondence to Respondent. 9. Respondent believes that, in fact, the stress being experienced by the children is affecting their educational endeavors, particularly [boy], and is affecting their relationship with both parents. Respondent believes that it is imperative that [city] District Court Civil Action No. 87-DR-2467 In re marriage of: [last name] MOTION TO MODIFY CUSTODY Page 3 the children have professional assistance, "not amateur hour or cult-think. 10. It is in the best interests of the minor children of the parties that decision-making, as it pertains to education, health and religious upbringing, be modified such that the Respondent is the sole decision-maker in these areas of the children's upbringing. Any harm likely to be caused to the children by this change is outweighed by the advantages of such change to the children. 11. Respondent does not propose any change in the daily routines of the children, nor time spent with each parent. In fact, Respondent proposes that the physical residence of the children remain unchanged. The only change requested by the Respondent is that he be granted the legal authority to obtain professional assistance for the children and to make decisions, both in the present instance and as such matters may arise in the future, in the areas of education, health care and religious upbringing which are those areas in which the parties will never be able to agree due to the polarity of their beliefs concerning Scientology. WHEREFORE, Respondent prays that this Court enter an Order modifying the joint custody order herein and granting to him sole custody concerning the children's upbringing in the areas of religion, education and health care so that the Respondent may have the sole legal authority to make decisions which are in the best interests of the children. Respectfully submitted this 24th day of March, 1993. =================================================================== CUST1C.TXT DISTRICT COURT, [city] COUNTY, [state] CASE NO. 87 DR 246? 2 SETTING ORDER, DOMESTIC RELATIONS In re the Marriage of: [mother] [last name], Petitioner, and [respondent] [last name], Respondent. 1. HEARING ON MOTION TO MODIFY CUSTODY is set for one dayt~s) for the week of 18 October _, 1993 You will be contacted during the preceding week concerning the specific time and day of trial. 2. Discovery must be complete no later than 45 days before trial. However counsel are' advised to conduct discovery in a timely manner and not wait until the approach of the 45 day dead~ inc. The Court CANXOT GUARANTEE a pre-trial ru!in~ on motions filed within 30 days of trial. This applies to Rule 37 motions. 3. The parties are required to engage in mediation unless exempted from participation by Court Order. The parties must provide proof of mediation no later than ~0 days before trial. The parties may contact any of the mediators on a list available from the Civil Clerk's office or the Office of Dispute Resolution at 861-1111, ext. 672 to schedule mediation. 4. THE COURT WILL NOT VACATE THE TRIAL DATE NOTED ABOVE UNLESS THE PARTIES SUBMIT A SIGNED SEPARATION AGREEMENT. THE COURT WILL NOT ACCEPT COUNSEL'S STATEMENTS IHAI THE CASE HAS BEEX RESOLVED NOR COUNSEL'S ORAL STATEMENTS AS TO THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT. This order shall govern proceedings in this action unless its requirements are specifically waived or varied by order of the' Court. BY THE COURT DIVISION CLERK int~ the normal ~ailing process ~=e p~rsons or attorneys indicated c~.: ,Michael C. MorpheW ' Candace .Bowie DISTRICT COURT, [city] COUNTY, [state] Case No. 87-DR-2467, Division 2 NOTICE OF HEARiNG In re the Marriage of: [mother] [last name], Petitioner, and [respondent] [last name], Respondent. TO: PETITIONER AND HER ATTORNEY OF RECORD PLEASE TAKE notice that a one day hearing on Respondent's Motion to Modify Custody in the within action has been set on the [city] District Court's trailing docket for the week of October 18, 1993, in Division 2 of the [city] County District Court, 1777 6th Street, [city], [state]. Dated: April ? , 1993. ==================================================================== CUST1D.TXT DISTRICT COURT, [city] COUNTY, [state] Case No. 87-DR-2467, Division 2 MOTION FOR COURT TO APPOINT A LICENSED PSYCHOLOGIST TO CONDUCT MENTAL HEALTH EXAMINATION OF MINOR CHILDREN In re the Marriage of: [mother] [last name], Petitioner, and [respondent] [last name], Respondent. COMES NOW Respondent, by and through his attorneys, Day and Sackheim, by Michael C. Morphew, and pursuant to C.R.S. 14-10-127 and C.R.C.P. 35 moves that this Court appoint a licensed psychologist in order to conduct a mental health examination of the minor children herein and to file a report with this Court and counsel regarding the mental status of the children. In support thereof, Respondent states: 1. On or about March 24, 1993, Respondent filed with this Court his Motion to Modify Custody which, in part, alleged that the circumstances of the children due to the difference of beliefs of their parents as same concerns Scientology is causing them stress and impairing their emotional development, and that mental health counseling and therapy was, therefore, indicated and necessary. 2. The mental health of the children is at issue and an examination of the children by a licensed psychologist and a determination by same as to the need for counseling and therapy for the children would greatly aid this Court in determining that which is best for the children. 3. C.R.S. 14-10-127 provides, in part, that the Court "shall appoint a licensed mental health professional...to perform an evaluation and file a report concerning custodial... arrangements ...for the child***" 4. The issue of the decision to obtain mental health counseling for the children relates to the custodial arrangements between the parties as they have joint custody but are unable to come to an agreement regarding this issue. 5o C.R.C.P. 35 provides, in part: "When the mental... condition...of a party, or of a person in the custody or under the legal control of a party, is in controversy, the Court in which the action is pending may order the party to submit to a physical or District Court, [city] County, [state] Case No. 87-DR-2467, Division 2 In re the Marriage of [last name] MOTION FOR COURT TO APPOINT k LIC~M~D D~YCItOLOGI~T TO CON'DUCT MENTAL I-F_jtLTH EF~aJ4INATION OF MINOR (2I-IfELDREN Page Two mental examination...or to produce for examination the person in his custody or legal control***" 6. It is obvious that the mental condition of the children who are in the custody and control of the parties is in controversy. It is in the best interests of the children that their mental status be examined by a licensed professional and that said professional make his or her findings known to this Court. WHEREFORE, Respondent prays as above requested. Respectfully submitted this ~c7 day of April, 1993. DISTRICT COURT, [city] COUNTY, [state] Case No. 87-DR-2467, Division 2 MOTION FOR COURT TO APPOINT A LICENSED PSYCHOLOGIST TO CONDUCT MENTAL HEALTH EXAMINATION OF MINOR CHILDREN In re the Marriage of: [mother] [last name], Petitioner, and [respondent] [last name], Respondent. COMES NOW Respondent, by and through his attorneys, Day and Sackheim, by Michael C. Morphew, and pursuant to C.R.S. 14-10-127 and C.R.C.P. 35 moves that this Court appoint a licensed psychologist in order to conduct a mental health examination of the minor children herein and to file a report with this Court and counsel regarding the mental status of the children. In support thereof, Respondent states: 1. On or about March 24, 1993, Respondent filed with this Court his Motion to Modify Custody which, in part, alleged that the circumstances of the children due to the difference of beliefs of their parents as same concerns Scientology is causing them stress and impairing their emotional development, and that mental health counseling and therapy was, therefore, indicated and necessary. 2. The mental health of the children is at issue and an examination of the children by a licensed psychologist and a determination by same as to the need for counseling and therapy for the children would greatly aid this Court in determining that which is best for the children. 3. C.R.S. 14-10-127 provides, in part, that the Court "shall appoint a licensed mental health professional...to perform an evaluation and file a report concerning custodial... arrangements ...for the child***" 4. The issue of the decision to obtain mental health counseling for the children relates to the custodial arrangements between the parties as they have joint custody but are unable to come to an agreement regarding this issue. 5o C.R.C.P. 35 provides, in part: "When the mental... cond_ition...of a party, or of a person in the custody or under the legal control of a party, is in controversy, the Court in which the action is pending may order the party to submit to a physical or District Court, [city] County, [state] Case No. 87-DR-2467, Division 2 In re the Marriage of [last name] MOTION FOR COURT TO APPOINT k LIC~M~D D~YCItOLOGI~T TO CON'DUCT MENTAL I-F_jtLTH EF~aJ4INATION OF MINOR (2I-IfELDREN Page Two mental examination...or to produce for examination the person in his custody or legal control***" 6. It is obvious that the mental condition of the children who are in the custody and control of the parties is in controversy. It is in the best interests of the children that their mental status be examined by a licensed professional and that said professional make his or her findings known to this Court. WHEREFORE, Respondent prays as above requested. Respectfully submitted this ~c7 day of April, 1993. =================================================================== CUST1E.TXT DISTRICT COURT, COUntY OF BOLI1'.D'R.R, B~TF. OF CO1'.OR~DO c"iv~l ~ction ~o, 87-DR-~467-~. RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR COURT TO APPOINT A LICENSED PSYCHOLOGIST TO CONDUCT MENTAL HEALTH EXAMINATION OF MINOR CHILDREN In Re the Marriage of: [mother] [new last name] (F/K/A [last name]), Petitioner, and [respondent] [last name], Respondent. COMES NOW the Petitioner, by and through her attorney Candace H. Bowie, and in response to Respondent's Motion for Court to Appoint Licensed Psychologist to Conduct Mental Health Examination of Minor Children, states as follows: 1. The question at issue between the parties in this action (in the instant Motion and in Respondent's Motion to Modify Custody) is whether their minor children should be in contact with any mental health professionals (psychiatrists, psychologists, etc.) in any way and for any purpose. a. From the pleadings filed with the Court, it is Respondent's position that the children should receive mental health therapy, and most recently that they should be evaluated by a licensed psychologist. b. Petitioner, who is a member of the Scientology Church of which Respondent was also a member at the time of the dissolution of marriage, does not want the children to have treatment or evaluation by a mental health professional, pursuant to her religious beliefs. 2. The parties' Separation Agreement, dated March 18, 1988 and incorporated into the Decree of Dissolution dated April 5, 1988 nunc pro tunc March 29, 1988, provides for the parties to have joint legal custody of their children requiring the parties to make "joint parental decisions on major health, education and welfare issues affecting the children." Paragraph 5.A. a. First, the issue of mental health professional contact with the minor children is a major parental decision therefore subject to the provisions of the agreement. b. Second, the Separation Agreement provides that, if the parties are unable to reach such a decision, then they shall attempt resolution through mediation (up to two sessions if necessary), and if there is still impasse, then proceed to the arbitration phase outlined in detail in the agreement. Paragraph 5.A.(1), (2) and (3). 3. Respondent is attempting to circumvent the parties' Separation Agreement through the instant motion. a. Respondent has fashioned his Motion for Court to Appoint A Licensed Psychologist etc. as a procedural question pursuant to C.R.C.P. 35 and C.R.S. 14-10-127. To the contrary, the issue before the court on the instant Motion is substantive and goes to important parenting issues, i.e. religion and health. b. Also, what Respondent is requesting the Court to do is unconstitutional. (1) Respondent attempts to slur Petitioner's religious beliefs by using the highly inflammatory word "cult", and presumably seeks the Court's agreement that Petitioner's religion is not valid. (2) For the Court to accept Respondent's position in any way would be unconstitutional as against freedom of religion provided to all American citizens in the United States Constitution. 4. Therefore, Petitioner requests that: a. The Court enforce the parties' Separation Agreement and thereby require the parties to proceed through their specific dispute resolution mechanism (mediation and arbitration); OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE: b. The Court hold a hearing on Respondent's motion to appoint licensed psychologist as evaluator, to provide ample opportunity for this complex issue to be presented. Dated this ~ day of May, 1992. ===================================================================== CUST1F.TXT DISTRICT COURT, [city] COUNTY, [state] Case No. 87-DR-2467 REPLY TO RESPONSE OF PETITIONER WHICH OPPOSES APPOINTMENT OF A LICENSED MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL TO CONDUCT AN EXAMINATION OF MINOR CHILDREN In re the Marriage of: [mother] [last name], Petitioner, and [respondent] [last name], Respondent. COMES NOW Responden'~, by and through his attorneys, Day and Sackheim, by Michael C. Morphev:, and with respect to Petitioner's opposition to Respondent's request to appoint a mental health professional to conduct an examination of the minor children of the parties replies as follows: 1. It is the Petitioner who raised the issue of the mental health of the children as set forth in her correspondence to the Respondent on January 15, 1993, which is referred to specifically in Respondent's Motion to Modify Custody. In conversing with the Respondent, the Petitioner has taken the position that her opposition to the involvement of a mental health professional is based upon personal experience, not her "religious" beliefs. 2. The parties' Separation Agreement, while it provides that in the event a dispute should arise between the parties concerning a major parental decision, it is Respondent's position that the pending Motion of Respondent is a Motion to Modify Custody and, therefore, is not subject to the mediation/arbitration provisions as a modification of custody is not a parental decision. By entering into the parties' Separation Agreement the Respondent did not forego his responsibilities as a parent to seek a modification of custody when the custodial Order of this Court is viewed by the Respondent as harmful to his children. 3. While Petitioner may have her "religious" beliefs and while those beliefs may protect her from unconstitutional intrusions she has no right to extend those beliefs to the children who are not Scientologists and whose Constitutional rights protect them from unconstitutional intrusions. District Court, [city] County, [state] Case No. 87-DR-2467 In re the Marriage of [last name] REPLY TO RESPONSE OF PETITIONER WHICH 0PPOSES APPOINTMENT 0F A LICENSED ME~AL Iz[EALTH PROFESSIONAL TO COIq'D~3CT i~ EXAMINATION OF MINOR C~IILDREN Page Two WHEREFOREú Respondent respectfully prays that this Court grant his Motion to have the children examined by a mental health professional and appoint Dr. Deena Raffe to conduct the evaluation. Respectfully submitted this /Q day of May, 1993.~ ===================================================================== CUST1H.TXT DISTRICT COURT, [city] COUNTY, [state] Case No. 87--DR--2467, Division 2 REQUEST TO SET ON THE EMERGENCY DOCKET FOR FRIDAY, JUNE 11, 1993 In re the Marriage of: [mother] [last name], Petitioner, and [respondent] [last name], Respondent. COMES NOW the Respondent, by and through his attorneys, Day & Sackheim, by Michael C. Morphew, and requests that a thirty minute hearing be set on the Court's emergency docket for Friday, June 11, 1993, for Respondent's Motion For Court To Appoint A Licensed Psychologist To Conduct Mental Health Examination of Minor Children. Petitioner is represented by: Joe Pickard, 5353 W. Dartmouth Avenue, Suite 310, [city], [state] 00000 Respondent is represented by: Michael C. Morphew, 1910 Seventh Street, [city], [state] 00000 DATED: June , 1993. District Court, [city] County, [state] Case No. 87-DR-2467, Division 2 In re the Marriage of [last name] REQUEST TO SET ON THE EMERGENCY DOCKET FOR FRIDAY, JUNE 11, 1993 Page Two CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I certify that on June ~ , 1993, I personally mailed a true and correct copy of the foregoing document in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to: ===================================================================== CUST1I.TXT DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF [city], STATE OF [state] Action No. 87 DR 2467 -2 ===================================================================== ORDER ===================================================================== In re the marriage of [mother] [new last name] v. [respondent] [last name] ===================================================================== Respondant-father has moved for a change of the presently- ordered joint custody of the parties' two children, ages 14 and 11. His motion does not seek a change in the amount of time the two children spend with their parents, but rather a change to sole legal custody with him so that he may make decisions concerning their religious upbringing. He alleges that the Petitioner-mother is "asociated with the cult of Scientology."1 The thrust of his motion is that the tension between the parents over Sctentology is significantly impairing the emotional development of their children and needs to be addressed by appropriate means; and that the tenets of Scientology, at least as perceived by the mother, prevent the parents from being able to agree on a method of dealing with the issue. It is in this context that father has moved, per C.R.S., #14- 10-127, to appoint a licensed mental health professional to perform an evaluation concerning custody. Mother responds that evaluation of the children by a mental health professional would be contrary to her religious beliefs, and that the issues of religion and treatment are subject to mediation/arbitration pursuant to the parents' separation agreement. The father's reply is that mother's (as distinguished from the children's) religious beliefs are irrelevant, that mediation has failed and that what he is seeking is a change in custody (which is not subject to the mediation/arbitration provision) as distinguished from a court decision on the issues of religion or treatment. Shorn of its attacks on Scientology, father's verified motion for a modification of custody does raise a legitimate issue per C.R.S. #14-10-131.5. That being so, the provisions of ----------------- 1 Father repeatedly refers to Scientology as a "cult" and makes clear his view that it is "the ultimate absurdity," etc. Mother refers to it as the "Scientology Church," implying its status as similar to any recognized religion. This court has no intention of adjudicating the difference between a "cult" and a "religion," let alone determining into which category Scientology falls. ------------------ C.R.$, #14-10-127 are mandatory, and compel the granting of father~s motion insofar as it requests the appointment of a "licensed mental health professional" {as distinguished from a "Licensed Psychologist" as requested by father. The court notes that though a psychologist qualifies as a "licensed mental health professional," that term is not limited to psychologists.) The court will grant the parties 21 days from the date of this order to agree upon a licensed mental health professlonal, and for the father to comply with his financial obligations per #127. If the parties cannot agree upon the mental health professional, the court will make the appointment. BY THE COURT 4 June 1993 The above and foregoing were placed into the normal mailing process to the persons or attorneys indicated. Date 6-7-93 By: ================================================================== CUST1J.TXT DAY & SACKHElM ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 7th AND WALNUT OFFICE COMPLEX PARALEGALS: THOMAS D DAY, PC 1910 SEVENTH STREET DEANNA SMITH COLVIN GrLBERT M SACKHElM, PC MICHAEL C MORPHEW [city], [state] 00000 [mother] L HOLLADAY DARYL K JAMES aO~ M ~NN~SS ~ROW~ TELEPHONE [000] 447-9688 FAX (000] 786 8536 June 8, 1993 [respondent] [last name] [address] [city], [state] 00000 Re: The Marriage of [last name] Case No. 87-DR-2467-2 Dear [respondent]: Enclosed please find a copy of Petitioner's Objection to Request for Emergency Hearing regarding the above referenced matter. Obviously this Objection is now moot. If you should have any questions, please call. Sincerely yours, Michael C. Morphew k.~) MCM/kcf Enclosure DISTRICT COURT, [city] COUNTY, STATE OF [state] (v-~,5 <{ '~o : CASE N0. 87 DR 2467 2 PETITIONER'S OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY HEARING In re the Marriage of: [mother] [last name] n/k/a [mother] [new last name], Petitioner, and [respondent] [last name], Respondent. Comes now the Petitioner, by and through counsel and objects to the emergency hearing setting request for June 11, 1993, and states the following as grounds: 1. Respondent's counsel is aware of Petitioner's counsel entry of appearance in this matter, and mailed a copy of his motion to the undersigned which was received on June 7. 2. Respondent's counsel made no effort to clear this date with the undersigned, and the undersigned is unavailable due to other matters previously set. (Mr. Pickaxd will be in Division 6 of Jefferson County District Court at 9:00 A.M. on a domestic relations matter previously continued to such date, and, Mr. Pickard must attend to a criminal matter beginning at 1: 15, in the County Court of Jefferson County, in the afternoon of June 11 .) 3. Although an emergency docket hearing is requested, no emergency. has been alleged. 4. Mr. Pickard is available to set this matter forthwith, however, and has no objection to a mutually acceptable date. W'herefore it is respectfully requested that the motion be denied. Respectfully submitted, PICKARD & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ===================================================================== CUST1K.TXT DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF [city], STATE OF [state] Civil Action No. 87 DR 2467 -2 -------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE OF HEARING -------------------------------------------------------------------- In re the marriage of: [mother] [last name], Petitioner, and [respondent] [last name], Respondent. -------------------------------------------------------------------- PURSUANT TO ORDER OF COURT, you are hereby notified as follows: This matter is set for hearing on: HEARING ON MOTION TO MODIFY CUSTODY (one day) Date: 29 November 1993 Time: on the trailing docket for the week Place: Division 2 District Court 1777 6th Street [city], [state] Dated this 18 day of June , 1993. BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Division Clerk The above and foregoing were placed into the normal mailing process to the persons or attorneys indicated. Date 06-21-93 By anw Joe Pickard Michae! C. Morphew ==================================================================== CUST1L.TXT DAY & SACKHElM ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW ?th AND WALNUT OFFICE COMPLEX THOMAS D. DAY, P.C. 1~10 SEVENTH STREET PAP